From bounce-message-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 2 18:13:10 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA29637 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 18:13:08 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Lyris-Type: unsub-conf-req From: Lyris Reply-To: Lyris To: lyris.ss@tapr.org Subject: Your confirmation is needed (ok 6751) Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:53:22 -0500 Your email address 'lyris.ss@tapr.org' has been submitted to be unsubscribed from the 'ss' mailing list. This unsubscribe command requires your confirmation that you want to be unsubscribed. To confirm that you do want to unsubscribe, reply to this message so that the words "ok 6751" appear somewhere on the subject line. Make sure that your reply message is addressed to unsubscribe-confirm@lists.tapr.org You will receive notification that your confirmation has been received, and that you have been unsubscribed. If you do not want to unsubscribe, do nothing. You will be kept on the mailing list. --- Return-Path: Received: from ux.snd.edu.gr ([194.219.139.5]) by lists.tapr.org with SMTP (Lyris Server version 3.0); Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:53:05 -0500 Received: from mailserver.mail.gr ([193.41.150.37]) by ux.snd.edu.gr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA25910 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 13:38:38 +0300 Received: from mailserver.mail.gr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailserver.mail.gr ; Sat, 03 Aug 2002 13:36:29 +0300 From: call_for_papers@wses.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: EMUmail 5.1 X-Originating-Ip: 195.167.121.67 Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Webmail-User: wseas@mail.gr To: ss-request X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Http_host: www.mail.gr Subject: Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 13:36:29 EEST Reply-To: call_for_papers@wses.org X-Rcpt-To: Message-ID: <102837098901@mailserver.mail.gr> # Mail sent to leave-ss-6751t was converted to these commands: unsubscribe ss lyris.ss@tapr.org confirm end # This is the text of the message that triggered the action: Return-Path: Received: from ux.snd.edu.gr ([194.219.139.5]) by lists.tapr.org with SMTP (Lyris Server version 3.0); Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:53:05 -0500 Received: from mailserver.mail.gr ([193.41.150.37]) by ux.snd.edu.gr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA25910 for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 13:38:38 +0300 From: call_for_papers@wses.org Received: from mailserver.mail.gr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailserver.mail.gr ; Sat, 03 Aug 2002 13:36:29 +0300 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: EMUmail 5.1 X-Originating-Ip: 195.167.121.67 Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Webmail-User: wseas@mail.gr To: call_for_papers@wses.org X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Http_host: www.mail.gr Subject: Conferences in Rhodes Island, GREECE Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 13:36:29 EEST Reply-To: call_for_papers@wses.org X-Rcpt-To: Message-ID: <102837098901@mailserver.mail.gr> CALL FOR PAPERS (please, copy, paste and distribute it by email) After the impressive success of the previous conferences of WSEAS, you are invited to submit a paper or to organize a session or a group of sessions for the conferences: 3rd WSEAS Int. Conf. on APPLIED INFORMATICS AND COMMUNICATIONS (AIC'03) http://www.wseas.org/conferences/2003/rhodes/aic 3rd WSEAS Int. Conf. on SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTATIONAL GEOMETRY & ARTIFICIAL VISION (ISCGAV'03) http://www.wseas.org/conferences/2003/signal 3rd WSEAS Int. Conf. on SYSTEMS THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC COMPUTATION (ISTASC'03) (former: Scientific Computation and Soft Computing) http://www.wseas.org/conferences/2003/rhodes/istasc RHODES Island, Greece, July 28-30, 2003 Like in all WSEAS Sponsored Conferences, all the accepted papers will be simultaneously published not only in the usual conference proceedings, but also as chapters in the WSEAS Press Book Series or as papers in WSEAS Transactions (Journals) The Proceedings and WSEAS Press Book Series will be edited by WSEAS Press (Athens, Greece). Chairmen of the Conferences and Editors of the Proceedings: See the web Please, visit: http://www.wseas.org (Please, do not reply to the email address: call_for_papers@wses.org, but to the one that you can find in the web pages of the conferences) RHODES: is a cosmopolitan resort in the south Aegean Archipelago in the Mediterranean Sea, where Europe meets the Orient and is the third largest of the Greek islands. Combining Europe with Orient and nearly the whole year favored by the God of Sun "Helios", it is a real experience to discover. The old Town of Rhodes is the largest inhabited walled medieval city in Europe and included in UNESCO's list of World Heritage Sites. It is called island of Sun, (the most sunniest place in Europe). It is called island of Knights, (see the History of the Island below). It is called island of Roses ("rhode" means rose in greek). It is called island of Butterflies (because of the famous - unique in the world - valley of butterflies). It is called island of the seven springs (because of the famous valley of the seven springs). Best Regards K.Papanikolaou ------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.mail.gr/ - Get Your Private Free Email Address! http://www.ringtone.gr/ - Ringtones & Logos for your mobile! From Contractor@ams.poltava.ua Fri Sep 6 03:01:34 2002 Received: from mail.BRVTPT (mail.vungtau.vnn.vn [203.162.41.123]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with ESMTP id DAA07647; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 03:01:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from alphaconsulting.ie (210006036034.ctinets.com [210.6.36.34]) by mail.BRVTPT with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id SLM8GD65; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:51:16 +0700 Message-ID: <00000a5a2e7c$00000369$000032df@alphaconsulting.ie> To: From: "Jessica P." Subject: Why Consolidate when you can Eliminate! Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 23:59:29 -1900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
click here to end creditor harrassment
Instantly Reduce Debt by 60% or More
...and Elim= inate All Interest!
If you're in deb= t, you know all too well the hassle of dealing with creditors that hound you non-stop. Stop the madness! Reduce= your debt and get the creditors off your back. With a FREE, No Obligation consultation, you can learn how to reduce= the amount you owe, eliminate the interest, and get rid of those inflated fees.
Get a FREE No= Obligation Consultation:
Eliminate Late = Fees
Eliminate Over-= Limits Fees
Pay Off Balance= s Quicker

Restore Your= Credit Rating

Click Here for a FREE Consultation=
It's strictl= y private and 100% confidential. No Home Ownership required!
From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Sep 6 10:06:10 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA06678 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:06:03 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:04:39 -0500 Message-Id: X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] Re: 802.11b and ham radio List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209061504.g86F4dd00618@faulkner.netnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >Howdy: > > Wouldn't it be great if there was a firmware flash that >would set several (11 or more) channels inside 2390 - 2450 MHz. >Or, at least, redefining channels 7 - 11 inside 2390-2350 MHz. >Assuming that, some day, somewhere, interference will exist >with part 15 users. > >Chuck nc8q Sure would be. In theory someone with enough knowledge could come up with something like this as all 802.11b devices use the same Prism or Hermes chipset. What would be even better is if the manufacures offered this 'firmware flash' to hams who requested it. A few manufactures do this to some extent but worry about their Part 15 certification. But maybe if a group like TAPR talked to these manufactures this 'firmware' flash could happen? Problem is 2400-2450 is shared with Part 15. 2390-2400 isn't enough for even one DSSS channel as they are ~22 MHz wide. In theory if you opperate under Part 97 you are given some protection from all the other wireless stuff that is classified as Part 15. See and old message of mine: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/confused.txt But then again under Part 97 you allowed more radiated power, so you might be able to overcome this interference. Overview: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/Ham_Ethernet_GBPPR.pdf --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Sep 6 15:02:03 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA21938 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:01:51 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Re: 802.11b and ham radio Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:00:54 US/Central X-User: dubose List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209062000.g86K0sm23348@mail1.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > >Howdy: > > > > Wouldn't it be great if there was a firmware flash that > >would set several (11 or more) channels inside 2390 - 2450 MHz. > >Or, at least, redefining channels 7 - 11 inside 2390-2350 MHz. > >Assuming that, some day, somewhere, interference will exist > >with part 15 users. > > > >Chuck nc8q > > Sure would be. In theory someone with enough knowledge could > come up with something like this as all 802.11b devices use the > same Prism or Hermes chipset. What would be even better is if > the manufacures offered this 'firmware flash' to hams who > requested it. A few manufactures do this to some extent but > worry about their Part 15 certification. But maybe if a group > like TAPR talked to these manufactures this 'firmware' flash > could happen? > > Problem is 2400-2450 is shared with Part 15. 2390-2400 isn't > enough for even one DSSS channel as they are ~22 MHz wide. In > theory if you opperate under Part 97 you are given some > protection from all the other wireless stuff that is classified > as Part 15. See and old message of mine: > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/confused.txt > But then again under Part 97 you allowed more radiated power, > so you might be able to overcome this interference. > > Overview: > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/Ham_Ethernet_GBPPR.pdf > Would it be possible to use 2390-2450? I know that the military is getting vendor's to modify some COTS IEEE 802.11 hardware for the frequencies they wnat to use and would assume that they could do the same for hams. Additionally, they are upping the power above the unlicensed limit. I have seen some articles in newsletters that show how to build amplifiers that boost the Part 97 hardware up to a couple of watts. That and gain antennas at 2.4 GHz is "powerful"...maybe even dangerous if you don't take some simple precautions. The Digital Data Conf.next weekend may address some of these issues. Walt/K5YFW --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 7 10:56:57 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA11660 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:56:56 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 10:56:18 -0500 Message-Id: X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] Re: 802.11b and ham radio List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209071556.g87FuHd22975@faulkner.netnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk >Would it be possible to use 2390-2450? >I know that the military is getting vendor's to modify some COTS IEEE >802.11 >hardware for the frequencies they wnat to use and would assume that they >could >do the same for hams. Additionally, they are upping the power above the >unlicensed limit. >I have seen some articles in newsletters that show how to build >amplifiers that >boost the Part 97 hardware up to a couple of watts. That and gain >antennas at >2.4 GHz is "powerful"...maybe even dangerous if you don't take some >simple >precautions. >The Digital Data Conf.next weekend may address some of these issues. >Walt/K5YFW It's possible for users to easily configure the 802.11 cards to use channels within the 2400-2450 overlap. See: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/allocations.html What alot of hams would like to see more is the devices opperating on ham band space not shared with Part 15, like 2390-2400 MHz. Anymore information you can pass along about the Military's use of the COTS devices would be appreciated. I'm half tempted to put a post on one of the commercial list just to see how many vendors / manufactures would be willing to do something like this. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 7 11:56:01 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id LAA14351 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:56:00 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 12:54:00 -0400 From: W3SZ Subject: [ss] point to point? To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hello, all! I want to set up a control connection for a remote site, and have been reading that the 802.11b is an inefficient way to do point to point. These writers say it is really for multipoint systems. Could someone help me to learn what point to point protocols are out there, and where I might start looking for hardware etc to implement? I would assume that I would be using 2.4G or 5G or higher for the link. What I need is just a high speed wireless link between 2 computers, both running Linux, and I need a data rate of more than 7 MB/sec. I ran my remote applications over the hardwired network here and that is what it the data transfer rates were. 10 MBs would likely be better. What am I doing? 96 KHz-wide "audio" stream at 24 bits from a homebrew dsp-based receiver that I want to put at a remote site. Then add control links, etc. If you could point me in the right direction re: websites, etc to read I'd be most appreciative. I know about C-spec OverLan that goes up to 100 MBps at distance of up to 7 miles when operating at +1 dBm out, and so I would think that by cranking that up I could get out to the 15-18 miles I need. But I suspect this hardware might be cost prohibitive, and would like to hear what you experts have to say... Thanks in advance, and 73, Roger Rehr W3SZ FN20ah 2 Merrymount Road Reading, PA 19609-1718 http://www.qsl.net/w3sz --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 7 13:08:54 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA18851 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:08:52 -0500 (CDT) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 13:08:52 -0500 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 802.11b and ham radio References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3D7A40B4.11F06E9B@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Steve Lampereur wrote: > > >Would it be possible to use 2390-2450? > >I know that the military is getting vendor's to modify some COTS IEEE > >802.11 > >hardware for the frequencies they wnat to use and would assume that they > >could > >do the same for hams. Additionally, they are upping the power above the > >unlicensed limit. > >I have seen some articles in newsletters that show how to build > >amplifiers that > >boost the Part 97 hardware up to a couple of watts. That and gain > >antennas at > >2.4 GHz is "powerful"...maybe even dangerous if you don't take some > >simple > >precautions. > >The Digital Data Conf.next weekend may address some of these issues. > >Walt/K5YFW > > It's possible for users to easily configure the 802.11 cards to use > channels within the 2400-2450 overlap. See: > http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/allocations.html > > What alot of hams would like to see more is the devices opperating > on ham band space not shared with Part 15, like 2390-2400 MHz. > > Anymore information you can pass along about the Military's use > of the COTS devices would be appreciated. I'm half tempted to put > a post on one of the commercial list just to see how many vendors > / manufactures would be willing to do something like this. > I haven't "bought" anything for the government in this area since 1999; however, I read in the Government Computer News and Federal Computer Week that the Navy and Army are currently buying "modified" COTS. The Navy is going to use them shipboard and the Army is going to use them in a battlefield situation. The Army is using them on one of the unrouted IP domains. While the Navy (I believe... I'm not sure) is using MilNet assigned IP addresses. I think a posted "query" to find out who the sources are is a great idea. I really think that MFJ and others might have the vendors "make" a unit for their market. Let me address frequencies. I would like to see the frequency spread different enough that Part 15, etc. hardware would not be usable on the ham frequencies. And of course the max. power output that the unit is capable of. Now let me say a word about antennas. The antennas used on most, if not all, of the unlicensed 802.11 devices in omin-directional with a pattern much like a 1/4 wave ground plane...more or less a balloon pattern. Some folks in San Diego flew over the city with a Wi-Fi laptop and picked up thousands of "nodes" all mixing together above the city. Hams should use antennas that give a more of a donut pattern which would of course be a "gain" antenna. So I think that even running the same power as the unlicensed hardware, we would get better range...but again I would hope that we could get more power output and also use amplifiers. Walt/K5YFW IEEE 802.11, Where Hams Want To Go. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 7 13:33:36 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA19426 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 13:33:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 14:34:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Re: point to point? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id NAA19426 On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 12:54:00 -0400, W3SZ wrote: >I want to set up a control connection for a remote site, and have >been >reading that the 802.11b is an inefficient way to do point to point. >These writers say it is really for multipoint systems. It is really designed for office Lan's. It is LEAST suited for a outdoor wide area multipoint system so these writer's must have some other agenda. In the WISP arena, a company by the name of KarlNet sells firmware upgrades for the Orinico (and I believe other) 802.11b cards to implement a form of polling into them. 802.11b can suffer from "hidden terminals" just like conventional packet radio can. A point to point 802.11b link should work just fine with the proper engineering. >What I need is just a high speed wireless link between 2 computers, >both running Linux, and I need a data rate of more than 7 MB/sec. I don't think 802.11b could sustain this throughput. Try it with two cards in the same room... that will be the best it gets. If you don't like that, then it is a no go. You might look at 802.11a, which is 5 ghz and I think gives around 54megabits second over the air. Never worked with it so your on your own here. But with 15-18 miles, I think you'll need a pre-engineered solution (since it sounds like what you are doing is not amateur radio) and as such, it will be costly. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 7 14:30:30 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA22132 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 14:30:24 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 15:29:37 -0400 From: W3SZ Subject: [ss] Re: point to point? To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hi, Jeff! Thanks for the answer! It was very helpful! I need to make a MAJOR point though: What I am doing is DEFINITELY amateur radio! I am interested in remoting an 144 MHZ Homebrew DSP-Based receiver...Linrad (Linux-PC Radio)...which I've been using successfully for what is now approaching 2 years. Leif Asbrink SM5BSZ has written the software. He's on the software-defined-radio committee. I've been using the software with a homebrewed RF front end for nearly 2 years. Now I want to remote it. I view/record a 90 KHz +/- slice of spectrum at a time, and input it into a 24 bit soundcard. Its been up and running and in use as my primary EME receiver here for about a year...after about a year of initial debugging, etc...but now want to operate from a remote site. If you're interested in this see http://www.qsl.net/w3sz/linrademe2001.htm or http://www.qsl.net/w3sz/start.htm . If not, ignore the URLs ;) In the remote application I will send the datastream from the remote site to the central site for viewing and reception. I hadn't looked at 802.11a but I will now, per your suggestions..54 Mbps should do. 73, Roger Rehr W3SZ FN20ah 2 Merrymount Road Reading, PA 19609-1718 http://www.qsl.net/w3sz --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 7 16:46:27 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA28673 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2002 16:46:21 -0500 (CDT) From: Frosty6981@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 17:45:14 EDT Subject: [ss] High power 802.11 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_18b.dadbcb5.2aabcd6a_boundary" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <18b.dadbcb5.2aabcd6a@aol.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk --part1_18b.dadbcb5.2aabcd6a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is there a way to run high power 802.11? I was thinking about 5-10 watts,=20 and some way inserting a call sign in to the data stream. Does anyone know=20 of anything like this? Is there already software that will insert a call in= =20 to the data stream? 73, Reid KC=D8IDI --part1_18b.dadbcb5.2aabcd6a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is there a way to run high power 802.11?  I was t= hinking about 5-10 watts, and some way inserting a call sign in to the data=20= stream.  Does anyone know of anything like this?  Is there already= software that will insert a call in to the data stream?

73, Reid KC=D8IDI --part1_18b.dadbcb5.2aabcd6a_boundary-- --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Sep 8 19:01:27 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id TAA08938 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 19:01:22 -0500 (CDT) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 19:01:26 -0500 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" CC: jreigel@swbell.net Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by txsmtp02.texas.rr.com id g89008Rg018471 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3D7BE4D6.4479549@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id TAA08938 Frosty6981@aol.com wrote: > > Is there a way to run high power 802.11? I was thinking about > 5-10 watts, and some way inserting a call sign in to the data > stream. Does anyone know of anything like this? Is there > already software that will insert a call in to the data stream? > > 73, Reid KCŘIDI Reid, I am not aware of anyone with that capability right how. However, there is a ham with the Central Ohio Linux Users Group that has a schematic for a 1 watt amplifier. This is one of the things that I would like to see get going. A network node/gateway (to the Internet) running 5-10 watts ERP omin-directional up high like a repeater would be the start of a wonderful network. Walt/K5YFW --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Sep 8 19:25:22 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id TAA10084 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 19:25:21 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:22:51 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > I am not aware of anyone with that capability right how. > However, there is a ham with the Central Ohio Linux Users Group > that has a schematic for a 1 watt amplifier. I would be interested in this, particularly to see how T/R switching was implemented. On a similar note, what's the feasibility of transverting 802.11b to another band? > This is one of the things that I would like to see get going. A > network node/gateway (to the Internet) running 5-10 watts ERP > omin-directional up high like a repeater would be the start of a > wonderful network. These ERP levels are already possible for directional links, but an omni does need extra RF power. It's rather coincidental that this thread popped up at a time a local ham here asked me about 802.11b for hams... Tony, VK3JED --- Outgoing mail ihas been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 2/08/2002 This correspondence is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Sep 8 20:27:28 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA12568 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 20:27:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Frosty6981@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 21:25:51 EDT Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_182.e04fe36.2aad529f_boundary" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <182.e04fe36.2aad529f@aol.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk --part1_182.e04fe36.2aad529f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Walt, I assume there is no call sign add in software, but if there is= =20 any one with the knowledge to design some it would be appreciated. Also wha= t=20 is the legal power limit for the unlicensed service? 73, Reid KC=D8IDI --part1_182.e04fe36.2aad529f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Walt, I assume there is no call sign add in sof= tware, but if there is any one with the knowledge to design some it would be= appreciated.  Also what is the legal power limit for the unlicensed se= rvice?

73, Reid KC=D8IDI --part1_182.e04fe36.2aad529f_boundary-- --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Sep 8 23:15:01 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id XAA21034 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 23:14:57 -0500 (CDT) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 23:14:49 -0500 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by txsmtp01.texas.rr.com id g894DNZH029942 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3D7C2039.D4B72679@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id XAA21034 Frosty6981@aol.com wrote: > > Thanks Walt, I assume there is no call sign add in software, > but if there is any one with the knowledge to design some it > would be appreciated. Also what is the legal power limit for > the unlicensed service? > > 73, Reid KCŘIDI I think Proxima(?) will embed you call sign in the firmware. I know that you can easily modify Linux drivers to add your callsign in the packets. Again, the fellow from the Central Ohio LUG has URLs that tell you how to do it. My guess is its is a "radiation" level put don't know what it is. And, I know that others on this list DO know. Walt/K5YFW --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 9 06:31:44 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id GAA18461 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 06:31:39 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 6:30:39 Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Clay Bartholow" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk 97.311(d): The transmitter power must not exceed 100 W under any circumstances. If more than 1 W is used, automatic transmitter control shall limit output power to that which is required for the communication. This shall be determined by the use of the ratio, measured at the receiver, of the received energy per user data bit (Eb) to the sum of the received power spectral densities of noise (N0) and co-channel interference (I0). Average transmitter power over 1 W shall be automatically adjusted to maintain an Eb/(N0 + I0) ratio of no more than23 dB at the intended receiver. You might want to verify that I didn't make a typo... Power is not the problem, in my mind, but rather the automatic power control (above 1 W). Since this is dependent upon the conditions at the receiver (not at the transmitter) this suggests some type of feedback from receiver to transmitter (unless there is some way to correlate retries to the ratio described in Part 97). I'm just thinking out loud a little here. But this seems like the "sticky wicket" in my mind to the use of reasonable power for omnidirectional communications using 802.11b (or any other form of SS under Part 97). --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 9 10:01:54 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA26069 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:01:53 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:00:33 -0500 Message-Id: X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209091500.g89F0Wd01450@faulkner.netnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk There are a number of ways to embed your callsign within the ethernet datagram, you could embed it in the MAC or in a ping for example. (http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pingid.html) Yes homebrew amps are possible. (http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/appendixB.html) Bus as someone pointed out 1 Watt PEP is the max unless you can incorporate "Automatic Transmitter Power Control" Part 97 versus Part 15 and Permissible Power Comparison: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html Ham Ethernet Using Part 15 Wireless Etherenet Devices Under Part 97: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/Ham_Ethernet_GBPPR.pdf --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 9 10:33:38 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA28569 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:33:33 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:32:22 US/Central X-User: dubose List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209091532.g89FWM025452@mw2.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Yes homebrew amps are possible. > (http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/appendixB.html) Bus as someone pointed > out 1 Watt PEP is the max unless you can incorporate "Automatic Transmitter > Power Control" > I tthink that we can push the FCC to move that up 6 db (4 watts) if the League will support that. Everyone needs to bookmark the URLs that Steve sent along. Walt/K5YFW --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 9 10:45:36 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA28885 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:45:30 -0500 (CDT) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 10:44:27 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeff King References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.7 X-Originating-IP: 64.9.221.42 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <1031586267.3d7cc1dbee1fe@webmail.aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Quoting dubose@texas.net: > > > Yes homebrew amps are possible. > I tthink that we can push the FCC to move that up 6 db (4 watts) if > the League will support that. Why can't spread spectrum be on equal parity with the rest of amateur radio? I mean, you'd have a better case for the legal need for automatic power control on a 20 meter HF pileup. Amateur radio operators already are legally required to use the minimum power required for communication and not a single instances was cited of a spread spectrum operator running excessive power for the communication at had. However, such cannot be said for VHF/HF contest operation. Yet these modes which are commonly abused have no need for automatic power control. The issue is NOT the FCC. The issue is our fellow amateur radio operators technical racisim and fear of spread spectrum. Read the comments in the rule making. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 9 11:36:56 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id LAA01848 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:36:53 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:36:7 Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Clay Bartholow" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Steve et al, Good discussion... Your reference: Part 97 versus Part 15 and Permissible Power Comparison: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/pwr.html -- Only applies to Pout up to 1 W and the relative Pout (EIRP) possibilities under Part 15 vs. Part 97 at these levels… Your reference: Yes homebrew amps are possible. (http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/appendixB.html) -- As the author noted in this article (Appendix B): -- One watt into a 24 dB directional antenna has an effective radiated power of over 250 watts. -- Don't point the antenna at your sisters. I suspect that 100 W PEP levels are a ways out and certainly have some significant radiation hazard concerns. At the 2 to 5 W levels, which should be reasonably possible using current technologies available to experimenters, I think: -- The big problem will be the Automatic Power Control. Under current Part 97 rules this will be the biggest technical sticking point for experimenters. (Sure, you can debate the rationale employed by the FCC and commenters in coming up with this requirement, it's still the rule as it currently stands. Change the FCCs mind if you wish -- I'd rather take on the technical challenges.) There are, I believe, some commercial amplifiers available with APC but I'm not sure they implement the Eb/(N0+I0) control referenced in 97.311(d) and, being commercial, I suspect they may be expensive. Has anyone done some thinking along these lines? I wonder if anyone at DCC will be discussing this and potential solutions... -- The radiation hazards are still problematic (especially for those who don't keep their heads screwed on straight during testing and installation). 73, Clay Bartholow W0LED --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 9 13:05:22 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA06565 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:05:13 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 14:09:29 -0400 From: Hunter Harris X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3D7CE3D9.FFFB32DF@attbi.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I have been reading the mail on this power issue because I have a spread spectrum background but am not active in any such Ham effort at the moment. Power control is an imperative because the Cross Correlation function sidelobes (nominally 30 to 50 db down) are the only control over mutual interference. Even with good sidelobes, a nearby station will generally blank a distant transmission because of the propagation loss. This is because everyone shares a common band. Early military systems had to learn this lesson the hard way. At VHF/UHF where everyone more or less hears everyone else, this is more controllable. At HF frequencies with the vagaries of the ionosphere even power control is not always successful. This is why the military will often prefer frequent hopping even though it does not have as much process gain. Hunter Harris W1SI Jeff King wrote: > > Quoting dubose@texas.net: > > > > > > Yes homebrew amps are possible. > > > I tthink that we can push the FCC to move that up 6 db (4 watts) if > > the League will support that. > > Why can't spread spectrum be on equal parity with the rest of amateur radio? > > I mean, you'd have a better case for the legal need for automatic power control > on a 20 meter HF pileup. Amateur radio operators already are legally required > to use the minimum power required for communication and not a single instances > was cited of a spread spectrum operator running excessive power for the > communication at had. However, such cannot be said for VHF/HF contest > operation. Yet these modes which are commonly abused have no need for automatic > power control. > > The issue is NOT the FCC. The issue is our fellow amateur radio operators > technical racisim and fear of spread spectrum. Read the comments in the rule > making. > > -Jeff > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: huntharris@attbi.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 9 13:16:59 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA07063 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:16:59 -0500 (CDT) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:15:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeff King References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.7 X-Originating-IP: 64.9.221.42 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <1031595356.3d7ce55cdb7b5@webmail.aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Quoting Hunter Harris : > I have been reading the mail on this power issue because I have a > spread > spectrum background but am not active in any such Ham effort at the > moment. > > Power control is an imperative Understood why it is there, and how it is useful, but it is *really* useful to read some of the reply comments on this issue, as I have stated. Phil Karn was insturemental in getting the power control in the NPRM in the first place, and then he did a turnaround on this. Reason being, at least for the off the shelf part 15 stuff, is often there is no way to easily implement power control plus you have the point to multi-point issue. As rules already existed in amateur radio to use the least power required for the the communication required, codifing these technical power control rules exclusively for spread spectrum had the effect of making it a second class citizen to other modes (as well as the other implicite rules that do this). -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 9 14:20:46 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA09780 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:20:42 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:16:26 +0100 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 09/09/2002 20:18:13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Why can't spread spectrum be on equal parity with the rest > of amateur radio? I think this is a North American preoccupation only. My licence makes no such spurious distinctions on modulation method. UK users have 2310-2400MHz to play with, 80MHz more than in some countries. WLAN RF hardware won't tune to the bottom of that range; the filters will roll off and the VCO control voltage will hit the endstop. I'm erecting an SMC wireless AP reboxed at the top of a pole with high-gain omni antennas. The AP runs OpenAP Linux. >From my experience of range tests of 2.4GHz radios, I don't think power & amplifiers is the issue. Height and antenna gain come first, especially if you're fixed, not mobile. I'm going for a 6dBi omni made with heliax to start but I'm thinking of making a 15dBi waveguide omni. It must cost much the the same as an amp, and it helps receive too. And I won't be polluting the satellite orbit quite as bad, where we'll be creating problems for amateur satellites. There doesn't seem any reason structurally why waveguides can't be pushed to 3m in length, at 18dBi, or longer, if you don't mind fewer channels. If you want point-to-point then 30dBi dishes are easy enough; forget the amps. Ground reflection is a serious problem that limits range. Open field range falls far short of free-space range. Signal drops off a cliff much quicker than expected, so 6dB more power doesn't double your range; try 12dB! To get the range back you need antenna elevation. You amateur radio chaps are all already aware that even a metre of half-decent cable and connectors will loose you a dB in Tx and a dB in Rx. A 30-foot mast is great, a 30-foot feeder is a not. Mast mounted APs are the only way. The PC power-users experimenting with their WLANs are a little more difficult to convince. I get the feeling that there's more experimenting going on with 2.4GHz and with Spread-spectrum in the unlicenced WLAN community than there is in ham radio circles at the moment. They already have far more public nodes on the air than we've ever had packet nodes. If we can make this the stuff of Amateur Radio, then this is where new members in future will come from. Despite the UK's examination reforms, I can't quite see how they fit through the entry system. WLAN-surfing is a million miles from a QSO. We have to start teaching FHSS & DSSS & DHCP, not USB, G5RV and you're 5 &9. I don't think UK authorities are ever likely to persue unlicenced modifiers of licence-free 2.4GHz WLAN. They wish to avoid managing the band, that would incur costs. In fact I doubt they'd know how to, without a piece of paper for each licenced user. They only respond to complaints, and if a complaint were made I think they'd resist persuing it. Things are easy in licenced bands - visit the known users, or look for a pirate. In the unlicensed band, some interference is expected, 100% comms anywhere isn't offered. You don't know who or where the stations are, you can't visit them and measure their power, or separate them out on a spectrum analyser. A victim receiver (say a DECT phone) simply seeing too many other SS signals in-band is not likely to be analysable to an offender anytime soon. There are advantages to staying nominally "unlicenced" in the UK. There's no restrictions on unattended operation for WLAN, or what traffic you carry. But to run unattended, ham station must notify the authorities, they'll want to know about your service and who'll use it, they are likely to inspect arrangements, want keyholders, and the RSGB band-planning police swing into operation. And the restrictions on traffic mean you can't do what you wanted to do with it. Especially as the other experimenter's nodes you want to link with aren't licenced amateurs. If I'm going to attract RF-newbies into building a WLAN net with their internet and programming skills, they're not going to come from the retired-ranks of the ham-radio club. Ant M1FDE --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 9 17:49:16 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA21734 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:49:14 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 08:48:23 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > I mean, you'd have a better case for the legal need for > automatic power control > on a 20 meter HF pileup. Amateur radio operators already are > legally required > to use the minimum power required for communication and not a > single instances > was cited of a spread spectrum operator running excessive > power for the > communication at had. However, such cannot be said for VHF/HF contest > operation. Yet these modes which are commonly abused have no > need for automatic > power control. I can think of an even better case for automatic power control - satellite operation, where uplink power level is _very_ important. > > The issue is NOT the FCC. The issue is our fellow amateur > radio operators > technical racisim and fear of spread spectrum. Read the > comments in the rule > making. Fortunately in VK, we don't have this sort of absurdity. Spread spectrum is just "another mode". The main restriction is that it and other wideband modes can only be used above 420 MHz, and the usual ID provisions apply. Nothing in our regs specifically singles it out, hence the interest in power of any (affordable) level. :) A couple of people are now coming out of the woodwork and declaring their interest in utilising 802.11b style technology on the amateur bands. --- Outgoing mail ihas been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 4/09/2002 This correspondence is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 9 17:55:15 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA21878 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:55:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 08:53:59 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id RAA21878 > Power control is an imperative because the Cross Correlation function > sidelobes (nominally 30 to 50 db down) are the only control > over mutual > interference. Even with good sidelobes, a nearby station Still doesn't make it logical to be mandated. Mutual interference issues should be sorted out in the amateur community (as they are on other modes). That gives the freedom for amateurs to innovate and find their own ways of resolving these issues. Isn't that what the the whole idea of amateur radio is about? --- Outgoing mail ihas been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 4/09/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Sep 10 00:20:21 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id AAA09530 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:20:21 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:32:14 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > > Why can't spread spectrum be on equal parity with the rest > > of amateur radio? > > I think this is a North American preoccupation only. > My licence makes no such spurious distinctions on > modulation method. > > UK users have 2310-2400MHz to play with, > 80MHz more than in some countries. WLAN RF > hardware won't tune to the bottom of that range; > the filters will roll off and the VCO control voltage > will hit the endstop. I'll fill in a bit more of the situation Down Under. I have a foot in both the amateur and unlicenced camps and have some 802.11b gear running under the unlicenced conditions at home. The wireless LAN experimenters down here are well organised and there is a strong body of technical knowledge - as you'd expect, mostly in the PC/networking side, but there's increasing RF knowledge as well, and a strong awareness of the legal requirements for unlicenced operation (Most Melbourne Wireless members can tell you the EIRP limits here, and a significant number also know that the 5.2 GHz 802.11a band is for indoor use only in Australia). As there are a few amateurs involved, there has been a lot of education on the RF side of things. People are generally aware of issues such as connector loss, and very few even bother to ask about amplifiers nowadays, because the advantages of antenna gain over amplifiers are well known. The meetings are also not unlike a radio club meeting/tech night. One night, we had a complete simulation of a wireless mesh with OSPF routing going. Even has an "electronic hill" to prevent all nodes being able to see each other. That network was a lot of fun to setup and tinker with. :) I've even got a few interested in their amateur licence, which will bring more computer expertise to amateur circles and hopefully get some more interest in high speed amateur networks. > I'm erecting an SMC wireless AP reboxed at the > top of a pole with high-gain omni antennas. > The AP runs OpenAP Linux. I just run a LAN setup ATM. I can put my wireless router (a Linux notebook) outside for test purposes on the end of a long Cat 5 cable, and I have a modified MMDS antenna which seems to work quite well (though only 15 dBi gain nominally :( ). Looking for a bigger antenna. > > From my experience of range tests of 2.4GHz > radios, I don't think power & amplifiers is the > issue. Height and antenna gain come first, > especially if you're fixed, not mobile. Agreed. However, it depends on what you're trying to run. There are advantages to having power when considering point-multipoint operation (i.e. AP style), where the AP antenna gain may be limited by omnidirectional requirements. A lot of typical suburban links also have a minor degree of foliage in the way here, so that extra power may make the difference on a marginal link, especially in the wet (yes, antenna gain can be increased as well, but beyond about 25 dBi, that starts to become expensive and cumbersome too - 25dBi is the limit of commonly available MMDS antennas and the largest practical size for some sites). > If you want point-to-point then 30dBi dishes > are easy enough; forget the amps. Umm, 30 dBi dishes are not for all sites... I cartainly couldn't manage anything more than around 25 dBi. And that's even before considering wind loading. :/ > > Ground reflection is a serious problem that > limits range. Open field range falls far short > of free-space range. Signal drops off a cliff > much quicker than expected, so 6dB more > power doesn't double your range; try 12dB! > To get the range back you need antenna > elevation. The old "height is might" applies especially at 2.4 GHz :) > > You amateur radio chaps are all already aware > that even a metre of half-decent cable and > connectors will loose you a dB in Tx and a dB > in Rx. A 30-foot mast is great, a 30-foot feeder > is a not. Mast mounted APs are the only way. > The PC power-users experimenting with their > WLANs are a little more difficult to convince. Not down here. A few are already experimenting with PoE (power over Ethernet) and rooftop APs. Everyone is well aware of the hideous losses at 2.4 GHz. > > I get the feeling that there's more experimenting > going on with 2.4GHz and with Spread-spectrum > in the unlicenced WLAN community than there > is in ham radio circles at the moment. They > already have far more public nodes on the air > than we've ever had packet nodes. If we can > make this the stuff of Amateur Radio, then this > is where new members in future will come from. There is a lot of interest in wireless networking. At Melbourne Wireless, we have 800 people "interested", probably over 100 actual members (and 100-200 regular online participants). The monthly meetings consistently pull in over 60 people which is in the same order as the largest of the metropolitan radio clubs here. IMHO, we are looking at the next generation of radio amateur in these experimenters. I'm confident some of them will get their ticket, and it will change out hobby for the better, by adding diversity. The high speed networking can be combined with current "hybrid" ham/Internet technologies such as IRLP and wormholes to achieve all sorts of things. > Despite the UK's examination reforms, I can't > quite see how they fit through the entry system. > WLAN-surfing is a million miles from a QSO. > We have to start teaching FHSS & DSSS & > DHCP, not USB, G5RV and you're 5 &9. The Foundation licence is a good start, IMHO. WLAN gear is commercually built and off the shelf. In VK, the bands overlap nicely (I hope 2.4 GHz becomes a very basic amateur band one day soon!). > I don't think UK authorities are ever likely to > persue unlicenced modifiers of licence-free > 2.4GHz WLAN. They wish to avoid managing > the band, that would incur costs. In fact I doubt Self policing has proved to be successful here. The WLANers here want to be seen as legitimate and law abiding users of the band, in the face of commercial interests. As a result, there is a strong push to do things "by the book". > There are advantages to staying nominally > "unlicenced" in the UK. There's no restrictions on > unattended operation for WLAN, or what traffic > you carry. But to run unattended, ham station must > notify the authorities, they'll want to know about > your service and who'll use it, they are likely to Here, 802.11b is a digital mode, which means it can be run legally as an unattended amateur stations as packet stations routinely do here. > inspect arrangements, want keyholders, and the > RSGB band-planning police swing into operation. > And the restrictions on traffic mean you can't do > what you wanted to do with it. Especially as the other Yes, the traffic issue will always make unlicenced operation attractive. I see the hardcore "experimenters" still wanting to go the ham route (perhaps running in parallel with a separate unlicenced link like many amateurs kept their CB gear to talk to unlicenced people - not that many would admit it, but you do still see a lot of shacks with a CB or two!! ). > experimenter's nodes you want to link with aren't > licenced amateurs. If I'm going to attract RF-newbies > into building a WLAN net with their internet and > programming skills, they're not going to come > from the retired-ranks of the ham-radio club. True. They'll come from the emerging wireless groups which are springing up like mushrooms. Melbourne Wireless came from nothing 18-24 months ago to what it is today, an incorporated association with an expanding member base and a lot of expertise in many areas. Their first "meeting", an informal gathering at a pub was less than 12 months ago. There are similar groups around Australia with similar interests. 802.11b is a dynamic scene and a potential source of new amateurs and ideas. --- Outgoing mail ihas been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 4/09/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Sep 10 10:55:17 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA10657 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:55:16 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:54:31 -0500 Message-Id: X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209101554.g8AFsVd23129@faulkner.netnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk As Jeff pointed out the 1 Watt deal has nothing to do with RF safety. (see the NPRM) OET Bulletin 65 would still dictate if you need to perform a station evaluation. Just like any other mode. Here is the other pisser: (implies a sub-standard mode) (b) A station transmitting SS emissions must not cause harmful interference to stations employing other authorized emissions, and must accept all interference caused by stations employing other authorized modes. Protect the precious contesters, while they can continue to run ample power and possible cause problems for you. As someone pointed out Satellite and contesting are probably two of the most justifiable modes to impose a automatic power control rule on. I don't intend to use these modified Part 15 devices just for recreational use only. For example down in my State's capital there is a "state hamshack", some crazy old ham copies and pastes the context of inter-office state mock emergency drill e-mail messages and other information of interest into a MSYS message that gets sent all over. The state pulls the telephone plug to simulate an actual emergency. State directors have (fake) fatality counts and so on that need to get to so and so. And since there inter-office email can't talk out side the building, they get sent down to the state hamshack via inter-office email, and he copies and pastes that stuff. Which seems completely stupid to me. All they should have to do is plug in jumper in and have that inter-office router talk over the radio, and the messages could routed back onto the internet after leaving the disaster area via radio. Bottom line is something like modified Part 15 devices could provide a seamless efficient method of getting messages where they need to go in emergencies. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Sep 10 14:26:09 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA23264 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:26:04 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] 802.11b Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:24:53 US/Central X-User: dubose List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209101924.g8AJOq324332@mw2.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I have been looking at two threads on 802.11b. This one and one on the SATLUG (http://satlug.org) mail list. The SATLUG thread is of course concerning Part 15 use. I have just come to realize that the part 15 folks might have several hundred users around town that want some high power/wide area coverage for 802.11b. But, we hams would be lucky to get a dozen, perhaps two, interested in using 802.11b in San Antonio. Well, maybe more; but, they probably would never be more than a dozen or so on at anyone time. Also, if you restrict the usage to an AmprNet address (44 domain) address, you will have some control over who is on. That could (and you might want to) limit usage on some APs. But a general use Part 97 AP would probably want to use perhaps the 176. (Class B?) domain (I have forgotten exactly whast that IP range is) rather than the other Class A or Class C domain. If each of us contacts their ARRL Division Director and ask them to support 802.11b operation on the ham bands, I think we have a very good change of getting the ARRL's full backing...I KNOW that we have TAPR's or else we woudln't have this SIG. While the Part 15 guys worry about not covering too much area and having lots of nodes...we are concerned with wide area coverage. The Part 15 folks want to "drive" thru cells and we want one cell. There are quite a few differences in our desires and how we might use 802.11b compaired to the other folks. We need to look at not just moving data; but also, using Voice Over IP. How about controlling a QRO HF rig via an 802.11b network with VOIP audio. A full GUI for control and headset and mic for voice...or even running high speed robust HF data over the transceiver from your 802.11b laptop. These are things that the Part 15 folks can't do and we can't either unless we get all the various groups and individuals interested in 802.11b on the ham bands along with the ARRL and TAPR...we need everyone singing their own part off the same sheet of music...a concerted effort. So if anyone is inclined, go to the ARRL web site and get the E-Mail address of your division director (generally their callsign@arrl.org) and let them know how you feel. Also...and a BIG also, Cc the TAPR president or any, or all, of their board of directors (http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/Fiinfo.html). Hey, we can do it! 73, Walt/K5YFW --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Sep 10 14:46:56 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA24035 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:46:48 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Useful Information on Wireless Data Communications Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:45:53 US/Central X-User: dubose List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209101945.g8AJjqA15921@mw3.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Useful Information on Wireless Data Communications from "Compliance Engineering Magazine" Selected Articles: Unlicensed Wireless Data Communications, Part I: Defining Requirements http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/02/Spring/cutler1.html Unlicensed Wireless Data Communications, Part II: Specifying RF Parameters http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/02/Spring/cutler2.html New Rules for Unlicensed Digital Transmission Systems http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/02/Spring/cokenias.html Web Table of Contents: http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/02/Spring/toc.html --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Sep 10 15:02:26 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA24859 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:02:24 -0500 (CDT) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 802.11b Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:01:30 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeff King References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.7 X-Originating-IP: 64.9.221.42 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <1031688089.3d7e4f9a027b4@webmail.aerodata.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Quoting dubose@texas.net: > If each of us contacts their ARRL Division Director and ask them to support > 802.11b operation on the ham bands, I think we have a very good change > of getting the ARRL's full backing... I'd say that is a safe bet since it already happened a few years ago! ;-0 Entirely legal to operate "802.11b" under part 97 as long as you stay on channels 1-6. The rules where expanded to allow any hopping or coding sequence. I think what you are misunderstanding is the anger or disappointment a few of us expressed in the rules as they were passed a few years ago, in that they made the Spread Spectrum amateur radio operator a second class citizen in the ham bands. There really is very little practical advantage in running spread spectrum under part 97 as compared to Part 15. I'd suggest you please read these reply comments: http://www.tapr.org/tapr/html/ss.rule_changes.html as it clearly goes through who were the Spread Spectrum good guys as well as bad guys. 73 Jeff King --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Sep 10 16:03:55 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA28644 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:03:52 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:02:10 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Clay Bartholow wrote: > Power is not the problem, in my mind, but rather the automatic power > control (above 1 W). Since this is dependent upon the conditions at the > receiver (not at the transmitter) this suggests some type of feedback from > receiver to transmitter (unless there is some way to correlate retries to > the ratio described in Part 97). I'm just thinking out loud a little here. > But this seems like the "sticky wicket" in my mind to the use of > reasonable power for omnidirectional communications using 802.11b (or any > other form of SS under Part 97). In the case of an omnidirectional repeater, automatic transmitter power limits are pointless; you could easily argue that unless you transmit at full power all the time, the fringe stations won't know you're even there or that they can participate. Sure, you _could_ just beacon at high power, but that's completely pointless because you'd have to retransmit packets for the low-power users and the high-power users. IMO, automatic transmitter power control is a bunch of crap, unless you're running point-to-point, and then it's understandable. Besides, if you're going to a 99.99999 percent link, you're going to have ample power, gain, and a few other things. :) Good lord, 802.11b at 100W... Goodbye Part15 users in the lower end. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Sep 10 16:19:06 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA29688 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:19:01 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:17:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Steve Lampereur wrote: > stuff. Which seems completely stupid to me. All they should have to do is > plug in jumper in and have that inter-office router talk over the radio, and > the messages could routed back onto the internet after leaving the disaster > area via radio. Bottom line is something like modified Part 15 devices > could provide a seamless efficient method of getting messages where they > need to go in emergencies. Legalities -- non-ham in control of a ham station, innapropriate content sent over the air, use of ciphers[0], etc. [0]: This is another interesting point because I could have a pre-encrypted file[1] that I am sending to another ham. I suppose it's legal (IANACL) as long as the link itself isn't encrypted. It's confusing, nonetheless. [1]: Binary data is hard to discern -- it could be a zip file, a jpeg, a gif, a png, or outright encrypted communications (IPSEC?) I'm all for everything, but those rules don't allow us to do certain things. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Sep 10 16:25:29 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA00428 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:25:23 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:23:27 -0400 From: "Bret A. Boggs" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070907090602040105070403" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3D7E62CF.3010302@ameritech.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk --------------070907090602040105070403 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've been watching the High power 802.11 debate and though I would through my 2 cents worth in... Any thoughts on a system that relays through near by stations to reach outlying stations (a littled like what is done on X.25, but it is automated)? To get a better ideal about what I am talking about, take a look at WaveWireless 9000 series radios or the NovaRoam 900 system. Also... I though 802.11 was not very good at outdoors wide area applications due to the "hidden station" problem? The few outdoors point to multi-point radios I've worked with use a modified 802.11 protocol to avoid the "hidden station" problem. Bret WB8WKC Kris Kirby wrote: >On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Clay Bartholow wrote: > >>Power is not the problem, in my mind, but rather the automatic power >>control (above 1 W). Since this is dependent upon the conditions at the >>receiver (not at the transmitter) this suggests some type of feedback from >>receiver to transmitter (unless there is some way to correlate retries to >>the ratio described in Part 97). I'm just thinking out loud a little here. >> But this seems like the "sticky wicket" in my mind to the use of >>reasonable power for omnidirectional communications using 802.11b (or any >>other form of SS under Part 97). >> > >In the case of an omnidirectional repeater, automatic transmitter power >limits are pointless; you could easily argue that unless you transmit at >full power all the time, the fringe stations won't know you're even there >or that they can participate. Sure, you _could_ just beacon at high power, >but that's completely pointless because you'd have to retransmit packets >for the low-power users and the high-power users. > >IMO, automatic transmitter power control is a bunch of crap, unless you're >running point-to-point, and then it's understandable. Besides, if you're >going to a 99.99999 percent link, you're going to have ample power, gain, >and a few other things. :) > >Good lord, 802.11b at 100W... Goodbye Part15 users in the lower end. > >-- >Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' > "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" > This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: bboggs@ameritech.net >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > --------------070907090602040105070403 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've been watching the High power 802.11 debate and though I would through my 2 cents worth in...  Any thoughts on a system that relays through near by stations to reach outlying stations (a littled like what is done on X.25, but it is automated)?  To get a better ideal about what I am talking about, take a look at WaveWireless 9000 series radios or the NovaRoam 900 system.  

Also...  I though 802.11 was not very good at outdoors wide area applications due to the "hidden station" problem?  The few outdoors point to multi-point radios I've worked with use a modified 802.11 protocol to avoid the "hidden station" problem.

Bret
WB8WKC

Kris Kirby wrote:
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Clay Bartholow wrote:
Power is not the problem, in my mind, but rather the automatic power
control (above 1 W).  Since this is dependent upon the conditions at the
receiver (not at the transmitter) this suggests some type of feedback from
receiver to transmitter (unless there is some way to correlate retries to
the ratio described in Part 97).  I'm just thinking out loud a little here.
 But this seems like the "sticky wicket" in my mind to the use of
reasonable power for omnidirectional communications using 802.11b (or any
other form of SS under Part 97).

In the case of an omnidirectional repeater, automatic transmitter power
limits are pointless; you could easily argue that unless you transmit at
full power all the time, the fringe stations won't know you're even there
or that they can participate. Sure, you _could_ just beacon at high power,
but that's completely pointless because you'd have to retransmit packets
for the low-power users and the high-power users.

IMO, automatic transmitter power control is a bunch of crap, unless you're
running point-to-point, and then it's understandable. Besides, if you're
going to a 99.99999 percent link, you're going to have ample power, gain,
and a few other things. :)

Good lord, 802.11b at 100W... Goodbye Part15 users in the lower end.

--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR  <kris@nospam.catonic.net>  TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD'
                   
 "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!"
 This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security


---
You are currently subscribed to ss as: bboggs@ameritech.net
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org



--------------070907090602040105070403-- --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Sep 10 17:37:37 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA04181 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:37:36 -0500 (CDT) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:38:01 -0500 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3D7E7449.202EDF96@texas.net> Precedence: bulk "Bret A. Boggs" wrote: > > > Also... I though 802.11 was not very good at outdoors wide > area applications due to the "hidden station" problem? The few > outdoors point to multi-point radios I've worked with use a > modified 802.11 protocol to avoid the "hidden station" problem. > > Bret > WB8WKC > I think the hidden station problem will exist with any protocol including SSB on 20 meters. Ever tried to check into 14.313 and running only 100 watts? You get stepped on by all the QRO stations. Walt/K5YFW --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Sep 10 17:43:42 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA04350 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:43:41 -0500 (CDT) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:44:02 -0500 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3D7E75B2.8ED6FBD2@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Kris Kirby wrote: > > In the case of an omnidirectional repeater, automatic transmitter power > limits are pointless; you could easily argue that unless you transmit at > full power all the time, the fringe stations won't know you're even there > or that they can participate. That's a very good point and one to use in making a case for an NPRM relief. > Good lord, 802.11b at 100W... Goodbye Part15 users in the lower end. Well, we are licensed and they aren't. But besides maybe wanting to be good neighbors, we might want to a different channel set than the Part 15 folks. We could use differnt center frequencies and keep all the channels within the ham band. Walt/K5YFW PS, I am Big Brother and I'm not watching you. > -- > Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' > "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" > This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Sep 10 17:49:51 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA04769 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:49:50 -0500 (CDT) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:50:11 -0500 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: High power 802.11 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3D7E7723.3232D18D@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Kris Kirby wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Steve Lampereur wrote: > > stuff. Which seems completely stupid to me. All they should have to do is > > plug in jumper in and have that inter-office router talk over the radio, and > > the messages could routed back onto the internet after leaving the disaster > > Legalities -- non-ham in control of a ham station, innapropriate content > sent over the air, use of ciphers[0], etc. > > [0]: This is another interesting point because I could have a > pre-encrypted file[1] that I am sending to another ham. I suppose > it's legal (IANACL) as long as the link itself isn't encrypted. It's > confusing, nonetheless. > [1]: Binary data is hard to discern -- it could be a zip file, a jpeg, a > gif, a png, or outright encrypted communications (IPSEC?) > Another case for using (1) differnt channel set and different center frequenies, (2) AmprNet IP addresses and for control of remote devices, user IDs and password. If (1) and (2), it wouldn't matter if they were transmitted in the clear...would a ham "steal" another ham's UserID and password. Zipped files and binary files are NOT considered encrypted. Encryption is when your intent is to obsecure the trasnmission data from the FCC. We could run encryption all we wanted to if we provided the FCC the "key". > -- > Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' > "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" > This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security Walt/K5YFW --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Sep 12 13:01:56 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA13496 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:01:54 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ss] Webgear Aviator 2.4 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:59:16 +0100 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/09/2002 19:01:03 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Does anyone have the firmware upgrade files for upgrading the Webgear Aviator 2.4 to Aviator Pro? AKA the Windows 2000 upgrade? http://www.webgear.com referred to in all the FAQs as the source of this firmware upgrade is defunct. Ant M1FDE --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Sep 12 13:38:56 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA14782 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:38:56 -0500 (CDT) X-IP-Test: 206.183.9.199 Message-Id: X-Sender: dbade@pop3@apk.net (Unverified) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:38:15 -0400 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Doug Bade Subject: [ss] Re: Webgear Aviator 2.4 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020912143321.02c7f740@mail.clecom.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Yes I do, I can send where ever... there was a valid link not too long ago, but it had no DNS, but you just needed to know the web site.. I think it is still in my favorites.... HMM.. cannot find the link but i do have the program, there was a separate version for win2k, I have that somewhere too, but I do have the pro for win98.. Doug KB8GVQ At 06:59 PM 9/12/02 +0100, you wrote: >Does anyone have the firmware upgrade files for >upgrading the Webgear Aviator 2.4 to Aviator Pro? > >AKA the Windows 2000 upgrade? > >http://www.webgear.com referred to in all the FAQs as >the source of this firmware upgrade is defunct. > >Ant M1FDE > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: DOUG@CLECOM.COM >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Sep 12 13:44:26 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA14880 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:44:18 -0500 (CDT) X-IP-Test: 206.183.9.199 Message-Id: X-Sender: dbade@pop3@apk.net (Unverified) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:43:24 -0400 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Doug Bade Subject: [ss] Re: Webgear Aviator 2.4 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020912144249.00b63e40@mail.clecom.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I found my win 2k version, but as I recall it was beta... Contact me where to send it.. Doug KB8GVQ At 02:38 PM 9/12/02 -0400, you wrote: >Yes I do, I can send where ever... there was a valid link not too long >ago, but it had no DNS, but you just needed to know the web site.. I think >it is still in my favorites.... > >HMM.. cannot find the link but i do have the program, there was a separate >version for win2k, I have that somewhere too, but I do have the pro for win98.. > >Doug KB8GVQ > > > > >At 06:59 PM 9/12/02 +0100, you wrote: >>Does anyone have the firmware upgrade files for >>upgrading the Webgear Aviator 2.4 to Aviator Pro? >> >>AKA the Windows 2000 upgrade? >> >>http://www.webgear.com referred to in all the FAQs as >>the source of this firmware upgrade is defunct. >> >>Ant M1FDE >> >> >> >>--- >>You are currently subscribed to ss as: DOUG@CLECOM.COM >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to ss as: DOUG@CLECOM.COM >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From philip_sloss@baf.bonnier.se Fri Sep 13 11:26:05 2002 Received: from exchange.guaisa.com ([216.219.63.10]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with ESMTP id LAA17762; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:25:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from asus.com.cn (sc1-24.217.170.124.charter-stl.com [24.217.170.124]) by exchange.guaisa.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2655.55) id S5SZ7AH6; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:34:04 -0500 Message-ID: <000022bb6c02$0000188c$00000395@azlan.nl> To: From: "Customer Support Group" Subject: $ave money on your long distance conference calls Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:25:16 -1900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lowest Rate Services

Conferencing Made= Easy
Only 18 Cents Per Minute!=

(Including Long Distance!)=

<= /TABLE>

  • No setup fees
  • No contracts or monthly fees
  • Call anytime, from anywhere, to anywhere
  • Connects up to 100 Participants
  • Simplicity in set up and administration
  • Operator Help available 24/7
    • T= he Highest Quality Service For The
    Lowest Rate In The Industry!

    Fill out the form be= low to find out how you can
    lower your phone bill every month.    <= /TD>

    Required Input Field*

    Name*
    Web Address
    Company Name*
    State*
    Business Phone*
    Home Phone
    Email Address*
    Type of Business



    To be removed from this list, send an e-mail to remove@b= 2b-mail.net
    Type the word "remove" in the subject line.     .

    From bounce-message-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Sep 15 09:18:49 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id JAA18459 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 09:18:48 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Lyris-Type: unsub-conf-req From: Lyris Reply-To: Lyris To: lyris.ss@tapr.org Subject: Your confirmation is needed (ok 6751) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 09:59:49 -0500 Your email address 'lyris.ss@tapr.org' has been submitted to be unsubscribed from the 'ss' mailing list. This unsubscribe command requires your confirmation that you want to be unsubscribed. To confirm that you do want to unsubscribe, reply to this message so that the words "ok 6751" appear somewhere on the subject line. Make sure that your reply message is addressed to unsubscribe-confirm@lists.tapr.org You will receive notification that your confirmation has been received, and that you have been unsubscribed. If you do not want to unsubscribe, do nothing. You will be kept on the mailing list. --- Return-Path: Received: from apolo ([200.242.128.183]) by lists.tapr.org with SMTP (Lyris Server version 3.0); Sun, 15 Sep 2002 09:59:37 -0500 Received: from mail1.s4u.cz (host58-239.pool8019.interbusiness.it [80.19.239.58]) by apolo (2.0 Build 2144 (Berkeley 8.8.4)/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA26553; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:10:39 -0300 Message-ID: <000028721643$00001f46$00004d60@etrn.nextra.cz> To: ss-request From: "I-Corporate News" Subject: Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 07:17:22 -1900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable # Mail sent to leave-ss-6751t was converted to these commands: unsubscribe ss lyris.ss@tapr.org confirm end # This is the text of the message that triggered the action: Return-Path: Received: from apolo ([200.242.128.183]) by lists.tapr.org with SMTP (Lyris Server version 3.0); Sun, 15 Sep 2002 09:59:37 -0500 Received: from mail1.s4u.cz (host58-239.pool8019.interbusiness.it [80.19.239.58]) by apolo (2.0 Build 2144 (Berkeley 8.8.4)/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA26553; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:10:39 -0300 Message-ID: <000028721643$00001f46$00004d60@etrn.nextra.cz> To: From: "I-Corporate News" Subject: Do you make conference calls? Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 07:17:22 -1900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lowest Rate Services

    Conferencing Made= Easy
    Only 18 Cents Per Minute!    =

    (Including Long Distance!)=

    <= /TABLE>

  • No setup fees
  • No contracts or monthly fees
  • Call anytime, from anywhere, to anywhere
  • Connects up to 100 Participants
  • Simplicity in set up and administration
  • Operator Help available 24/7
    • T= he Highest Quality Service For The Lowest Rate In The Industry!=

    =
    Fill out the form be= low to find out how you can lower your phone bill every month.

    Required Input Field*

    Name*
    Web Address
    Company Name*
    State*
    Business Phone*
    Home Phone
    Email Address*
    Type of Business



    To be removed from this list, send an e-mail to remove@b= 2b-mail.net
    Type the word "remove" in the subject line.     .

    From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Sep 17 12:13:51 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA03013 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:13:47 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:13:00 -0500 Message-Id: X-Sender: kb9mwr@yahoo.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Steve Lampereur Subject: [ss] Re: 802.11b and ham radio List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209171713.g8HHCxK18710@faulkner.netnet.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I found what someone was talking about, in a document by by Rob Beutel for the Air Force Communications Agency: >COTS WLAN products meet Federal Communications Commission frequency >requirements and consequently can be freely used by the public and >military in the continental United States. However, COTS WLAN products >operate in frequency bands that must accept outside interference from >other devices. Some sources of interference can severely degrade >performance; however, in many instances this interference is >insignificant. These frequency bands are also not authorized for >military use in foreign nations. The frequency bands allocated for WLAN >use in the United States are typically limited to private, nonmilitary >use while outside the U.S. Current COTS WLAN systems typically use three >frequency bands. These are unlicensed bands in the United States, but >are largely designated for private use in foreign countries. COTS > systems operating in frequency bands allocated for military use outside >the United States are not available. Consequently, the Air Force will >not be able to expeditiously deploy and operate COTS WLAN systems in >most foreign nations because of host nation frequency restrictions. > >AFCA is looking into modifying COTS wireless LAN products to operate in >frequency bands that will be more suitable for military operation and >include enhanced encryption to protect data at appropriate levels. Three >federal-use frequency bands could be used in WLAN products that might >resolve current frequency issues. Most COTS WLAN products could be >easily modified to employ these frequencies because of their modular >architecture. Perhaps they can even be militarized or developed into a >form of government-off-the-shelf WLAN system. Future versions of >modified COTS WLAN products may include frequency agile transceivers >that can work in multiple frequency bands via plug-in modules or >software selection. Ham Ethernet Using Part 15 Wireless Etherenet Devices Under Part 97: http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/projects/wireless/plan.html --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Sep 19 15:08:53 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA05969 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:08:52 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:01:34 US/Central X-User: dubose List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209192001.g8JK1Yd20432@mail1.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Apparently there is NO standard on 900 MHz for unlicensed use, so whatever is done by hams is not bucking an existing standard. It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz RF board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from scratch. There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are full chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from the RF portion of 2.4 GHz. The more I read, I can see why TAPR wanted to go to FHSS; but, I think that the understanding of 802.11b makes it attractive from a "driver" standpoint for hams using MS, Mac, and Linux for hams as well as non-hams who might want to get into ham radio because of this "new" use of technology. I have noted that 802.11b on 2.4 GHz has a 22 MHz channel width and that channels are 5 MHz apart. Using this on 900 MHz, starting at the bottom of the band you would go from 902-924 Mhz but you could NOT have a second channel. However, if you could compress the channel width to 21 MHz, you could have one channel from 902-923 MHz and another channel from 907-928 Mhz. I don't know then if a standard 802.11b chipset would work. I guess the another question is are their chipsets out that do FHSS? And, could you marry one of those chipsets with a 900 MHz transmitter? As you can tell, I'm not interested in creating a new "wheel", just using what is already available (especially protocol wise) and making a usable product. Walt/K5YFW --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Sep 19 15:53:03 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA08605 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:53:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: "Hugh Shane" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" References: Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:48:33 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <000701c2601d$eba7b570$7700a8c0@sledcontroller> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz RF > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > scratch. > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are full > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from the > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > Take a look at Intersil's chip set: http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ser-p25-11mbps.asp This chipset clearly separates the RF/IF parts from the MAC/baseband parts. I need to take a closer look at these, and some other vendors', parts. But it seems like it could be done without adding too many more gray hairs. Hugh N7UAX --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Sep 19 16:20:09 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id QAA10223 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:20:08 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:12:42 US/Central X-User: dubose List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209192112.g8JLCgd11708@mail1.aus1.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > > > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz > RF > > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > > scratch. > > > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are > full > > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from > the > > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > > > Take a look at Intersil's chip set: > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ser-p25-11mbps.asp > > This chipset clearly separates the RF/IF parts from the MAC/baseband parts. > I need > to take a closer look at these, and some other vendors', parts. But it seems > like it could > be done without adding too many more gray hairs. > Hugh > N7UAX This a great find. Just a quick look is has got my interest up. It sure does look like you could hack out the RF unit and add your own RF unit for 900 MHz. Of course you would have to be careful not to have your RF unit going outside the ham band. I am also impressed that it appears that you can use USB PCMCIA and PCI as an interface...one card does it all. I will have to look up how far you can run a USB cable...maybe you could put the card up on high on your antenna mast so you would have only a short run of coax. Walt/K5YFW --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Sep 19 18:11:01 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA16871 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:11:01 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:10:19 -0400 From: spamdump Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Hi After reading this thread and with my very recent Intersil prism experience, I'd say to find another way. Intersil is not likely to sell one or two chips to anyone. (Although you could buy PRISM based NICS and hack them.) They are only interested in accounts of 1e6 parts per year. I recently wanted to build 5K radios. Their answer was that they would sell me the chips but that I would get no support. With that as their position, I had to tell my customer to do it another way. They did. If you want to work in 900 MHz, go find a bunch of old NCR (then ATnT, then Lucent, then Orinoco, then Agere, now Proxim) Wavelan ISA boards circa 1990. They work really well. You can only get drivers that were written for Win95 but happen to work with Win98, possibly ME, definately not 2000 or XP. No support. They do need ISA slots. My first wlan was done with these boards and I only took it down 2 months ago. On the up side, they are very discrete and consequently very modifiable. Regards Ken -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-30627@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-30627@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:13 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz > RF > > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > > scratch. > > > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are > full > > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from > the > > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > > > Take a look at Intersil's chip set: > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ser-p25-11mbps.asp > > This chipset clearly separates the RF/IF parts from the MAC/baseband parts. > I need > to take a closer look at these, and some other vendors', parts. But it seems > like it could > be done without adding too many more gray hairs. > Hugh > N7UAX This a great find. Just a quick look is has got my interest up. It sure does look like you could hack out the RF unit and add your own RF unit for 900 MHz. Of course you would have to be careful not to have your RF unit going outside the ham band. I am also impressed that it appears that you can use USB PCMCIA and PCI as an interface...one card does it all. I will have to look up how far you can run a USB cable...maybe you could put the card up on high on your antenna mast so you would have only a short run of coax. Walt/K5YFW --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: spamdump@optonline.net To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Sep 19 18:34:30 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA17496 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:34:29 -0500 (CDT) X-Internal-ID: 3D885DE30002976A From: "Marcelo Puhl" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:30:24 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b Reply-to: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-ID: Priority: normal In-reply-to: Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <3D8A33E0.30550.63F63D@localhost> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk On 19 Sep 2002 at 19:10, spamdump wrote: > If you want to work in 900 MHz, go find a bunch of old NCR (then ATnT, then > Lucent, then Orinoco, then Agere, now Proxim) Wavelan ISA boards circa 1990. > They work really well. You can only get drivers that were written for Win95 > but happen to work with Win98, possibly ME, definately not 2000 or XP. No > support. They do need ISA slots. My first wlan was done with these boards > and I only took it down 2 months ago. On the up side, they are very discrete > and consequently very modifiable. > Do you know a cheap source for those Wavelan boards? Thanks. ------ Marcelo Puhl http://py3ss.cjb.net --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Sep 19 18:34:29 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA17494 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:34:28 -0500 (CDT) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) In-Reply-To: from "dubose@texas.net" at "Sep 19, 2002 3: 1:34 pm" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:30:11 -0500 (CDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209192330.SAA19753@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > Apparently there is NO standard on 900 MHz for unlicensed use, so whatever is > done by hams is not bucking an existing standard. > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz RF > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > scratch. > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are full > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from the > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > The more I read, I can see why TAPR wanted to go to FHSS; but, I think that the > understanding of 802.11b makes it attractive from a "driver" standpoint for > hams using MS, Mac, and Linux for hams as well as non-hams who might want to > get into ham radio because of this "new" use of technology. > > I have noted that 802.11b on 2.4 GHz has a 22 MHz channel width and that > channels are 5 MHz apart. Using this on 900 MHz, starting at the bottom of > the band you would go from 902-924 Mhz but you could NOT have a second channel. > > However, if you could compress the channel width to 21 MHz, you could have one > channel from 902-923 MHz and another channel from 907-928 Mhz. I don't know > then if a standard 802.11b chipset would work. > > I guess the another question is are their chipsets out that do FHSS? And, > could you marry one of those chipsets with a 900 MHz transmitter? > > As you can tell, I'm not interested in creating a new "wheel", just using what > is already available (especially protocol wise) and making a usable product. > > Walt/K5YFW It's theoretically possible to do this. I have some ideas for external transverters based around the Proxim Symphony/RangeLAN FHSS gear. Their low TX/RX switching times and FSK modulation makes for ideal use of external high-power, cellular surplus RF power amplifiers. Schematics / block diagrams are here: 2400 MHz to 900 MHz Transverter for Wireless LAN Devices http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/2400-to-900.html 2400 MHz to 1200 MHz Transverter for Wireless LAN Devices http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/trans/index.html These ideas are experimental, and based around hardware I have readily available, hence the lame design. Old Proxim Symphony 2.4 GHz bridges and cards sell for around $40. 802.11b DSSS isn't really ment for the demanding challenge which is the 900 MHz band. The amount of in-band and outer-band interference is staggering. It may be better to utilize the 1.2 GHz or even the 440 MHz bands. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Sep 19 19:21:43 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id TAA19416 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:21:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:20:34 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id TAA19416 > 802.11b DSSS isn't really ment for the demanding challenge which is > the 900 MHz band. The amount of in-band and outer-band > interference is > staggering. It may be better to utilize the 1.2 GHz or even > the 440 MHz > bands. 1200 and 440 MHz are also of interest to those outside the US. 1200 MHz is especially interesting to me. --- Outgoing mail ihas been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.389 / Virus Database: 220 - Release Date: 16/09/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Thu Sep 19 20:16:59 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA22105 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:16:58 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:14:18 -0400 From: spamdump Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Marcelo, Please send me a email at spamdump at optonline dot net. Ken -----Original Message----- From: bounce-ss-30627@lists.tapr.org [mailto:bounce-ss-30627@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Marcelo Puhl Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 7:30 PM To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b On 19 Sep 2002 at 19:10, spamdump wrote: > If you want to work in 900 MHz, go find a bunch of old NCR (then ATnT, then > Lucent, then Orinoco, then Agere, now Proxim) Wavelan ISA boards circa 1990. > They work really well. You can only get drivers that were written for Win95 > but happen to work with Win98, possibly ME, definately not 2000 or XP. No > support. They do need ISA slots. My first wlan was done with these boards > and I only took it down 2 months ago. On the up side, they are very discrete > and consequently very modifiable. > Do you know a cheap source for those Wavelan boards? Thanks. ------ Marcelo Puhl http://py3ss.cjb.net --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: spamdump@optonline.net To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Sep 20 15:20:17 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA18655 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:20:16 -0500 (CDT) From: "Darryl Smith" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 06:16:41 +1000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Scanner: exiscan *17sUFT-00040k-00*D6zn9tBLi3U* on Astaro Security Linux List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <004b01c260e2$a520a290$4004a8c0@DELL8000> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk G'Day All... >However, if you could compress the channel width to 21 MHz, you could have one >channel from 902-923 MHz and another channel from 907-928 Mhz. I don't know >then if a standard 802.11b chipset would work. The problem here is that the 'channels' are not really channels. Channels sort of designate exclusive use. The use of 'Channel' is a marketing work that should be 'Center Frequency'. The 'channels' overlap so much that there is not much use having them. On 2.4 GHZ it is possible to have one station on Channel 1 and the other on Channel 2 and get a good link - since only 5 MHz out of 22 MHz does not overlap. I would have two suggestions... Use a single 'channel' only in the band Move the 22 MHz down to 11 MHz if possible and have two channels. The two 21 MHz channels at 5 MHz seperations only seem to be of use for interference offset purposes Darryl --------- Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] Darryl@radio-active.net.au | www.radio-active.net.au --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Sep 20 20:48:50 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id UAA05161 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:48:32 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:51:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Ussailis Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: September 19, 2002 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" cc: ss digest recipients In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk I can see a problem using a chipset designed for the 2.45 band at 900 MHz. Both FH and DSSS signals generate spectral sidelobes. In the 2.45 band there is specrum space for the sidelobes without the signal going out of the band. This space isn't available in the 900 MHz band. Someone needs to research the sideband attenuation requirements for the amateur service. Jim W1EQO PS FYI. The math that describes generation of these spectral sidelobes is exactly the same as that which describes generation of antenna sidelobes. On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group digest wrote: > TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Digest for Thursday, September 19, 2002. > > 1. 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > 2. Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > 3. Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > 4. Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > 5. Re: 900 MHz 802.11b > 6. Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > 7. Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > 8. Re: 900 MHz 802.11b > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > From: dubose@texas.net > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:01:34 US/Central > X-Message-Number: 1 > > Apparently there is NO standard on 900 MHz for unlicensed use, so whatever is > done by hams is not bucking an existing standard. > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz RF > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > scratch. > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are full > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from the > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > The more I read, I can see why TAPR wanted to go to FHSS; but, I think that the > understanding of 802.11b makes it attractive from a "driver" standpoint for > hams using MS, Mac, and Linux for hams as well as non-hams who might want to > get into ham radio because of this "new" use of technology. > > I have noted that 802.11b on 2.4 GHz has a 22 MHz channel width and that > channels are 5 MHz apart. Using this on 900 MHz, starting at the bottom of > the band you would go from 902-924 Mhz but you could NOT have a second channel. > > However, if you could compress the channel width to 21 MHz, you could have one > channel from 902-923 MHz and another channel from 907-928 Mhz. I don't know > then if a standard 802.11b chipset would work. > > I guess the another question is are their chipsets out that do FHSS? And, > could you marry one of those chipsets with a 900 MHz transmitter? > > As you can tell, I'm not interested in creating a new "wheel", just using what > is already available (especially protocol wise) and making a usable product. > > Walt/K5YFW > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > From: "Hugh Shane" > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:48:33 -0600 > X-Message-Number: 2 > > > > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz > RF > > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > > scratch. > > > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are > full > > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from > the > > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > > > Take a look at Intersil's chip set: > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ser-p25-11mbps.asp > > This chipset clearly separates the RF/IF parts from the MAC/baseband parts. > I need > to take a closer look at these, and some other vendors', parts. But it seems > like it could > be done without adding too many more gray hairs. > > Hugh > N7UAX > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > From: dubose@texas.net > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:12:42 US/Central > X-Message-Number: 3 > > > > > > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz > > RF > > > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > > > scratch. > > > > > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are > > full > > > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from > > the > > > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > > > > > > Take a look at Intersil's chip set: > > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ser-p25-11mbps.asp > > > > This chipset clearly separates the RF/IF parts from the MAC/baseband parts. > > I need > > to take a closer look at these, and some other vendors', parts. But it seems > > like it could > > be done without adding too many more gray hairs. > > Hugh > > N7UAX > > This a great find. > > Just a quick look is has got my interest up. It sure does look like you could > hack out the RF unit and add your own RF unit for 900 MHz. Of course you would > have to be careful not to have your RF unit going outside the ham band. > > I am also impressed that it appears that you can use USB PCMCIA and PCI as an > interface...one card does it all. > > I will have to look up how far you can run a USB cable...maybe you could put > the card up on high on your antenna mast so you would have only a short run of > coax. > > Walt/K5YFW > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > From: spamdump > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:10:19 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 4 > > > Hi > > After reading this thread and with my very recent Intersil prism experience, > I'd say to find another way. Intersil is not likely to sell one or two chips > to anyone. (Although you could buy PRISM based NICS and hack them.) They are > only interested in accounts of 1e6 parts per year. I recently wanted to > build 5K radios. Their answer was that they would sell me the chips but that > I would get no support. With that as their position, I had to tell my > customer to do it another way. They did. > > If you want to work in 900 MHz, go find a bunch of old NCR (then ATnT, then > Lucent, then Orinoco, then Agere, now Proxim) Wavelan ISA boards circa 1990. > They work really well. You can only get drivers that were written for Win95 > but happen to work with Win98, possibly ME, definately not 2000 or XP. No > support. They do need ISA slots. My first wlan was done with these boards > and I only took it down 2 months ago. On the up side, they are very discrete > and consequently very modifiable. > > Regards > Ken > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-30627@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-30627@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:13 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > > > > > > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 > MHz > > RF > > > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > > > scratch. > > > > > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are > > full > > > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate > from > > the > > > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > > > > > > Take a look at Intersil's chip set: > > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ser-p25-11mbps.asp > > > > This chipset clearly separates the RF/IF parts from the MAC/baseband > parts. > > I need > > to take a closer look at these, and some other vendors', parts. But it > seems > > like it could > > be done without adding too many more gray hairs. > > Hugh > > N7UAX > > This a great find. > > Just a quick look is has got my interest up. It sure does look like you > could > hack out the RF unit and add your own RF unit for 900 MHz. Of course you > would > have to be careful not to have your RF unit going outside the ham band. > > I am also impressed that it appears that you can use USB PCMCIA and PCI as > an > interface...one card does it all. > > I will have to look up how far you can run a USB cable...maybe you could put > the card up on high on your antenna mast so you would have only a short run > of > coax. > > Walt/K5YFW > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: spamdump@optonline.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: 900 MHz 802.11b > From: "Marcelo Puhl" > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:30:24 -0300 > X-Message-Number: 5 > > On 19 Sep 2002 at 19:10, spamdump wrote: > > > If you want to work in 900 MHz, go find a bunch of old NCR (then ATnT, then > > Lucent, then Orinoco, then Agere, now Proxim) Wavelan ISA boards circa 1990. > > They work really well. You can only get drivers that were written for Win95 > > but happen to work with Win98, possibly ME, definately not 2000 or XP. No > > support. They do need ISA slots. My first wlan was done with these boards > > and I only took it down 2 months ago. On the up side, they are very discrete > > and consequently very modifiable. > > > > Do you know a cheap source for those Wavelan boards? > > Thanks. > > ------ > Marcelo Puhl > http://py3ss.cjb.net > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > From: xlpitlum > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:30:11 -0500 (CDT) > X-Message-Number: 6 > > > Apparently there is NO standard on 900 MHz for unlicensed use, so whatever is > > done by hams is not bucking an existing standard. > > > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz RF > > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > > scratch. > > > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are full > > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from the > > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > > > The more I read, I can see why TAPR wanted to go to FHSS; but, I think that the > > understanding of 802.11b makes it attractive from a "driver" standpoint for > > hams using MS, Mac, and Linux for hams as well as non-hams who might want to > > get into ham radio because of this "new" use of technology. > > > > I have noted that 802.11b on 2.4 GHz has a 22 MHz channel width and that > > channels are 5 MHz apart. Using this on 900 MHz, starting at the bottom of > > the band you would go from 902-924 Mhz but you could NOT have a second channel. > > > > However, if you could compress the channel width to 21 MHz, you could have one > > channel from 902-923 MHz and another channel from 907-928 Mhz. I don't know > > then if a standard 802.11b chipset would work. > > > > I guess the another question is are their chipsets out that do FHSS? And, > > could you marry one of those chipsets with a 900 MHz transmitter? > > > > As you can tell, I'm not interested in creating a new "wheel", just using what > > is already available (especially protocol wise) and making a usable product. > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > It's theoretically possible to do this. I have some ideas for external > transverters based around the Proxim Symphony/RangeLAN FHSS gear. Their > low TX/RX switching times and FSK modulation makes for ideal use of > external high-power, cellular surplus RF power amplifiers. > > Schematics / block diagrams are here: > > 2400 MHz to 900 MHz Transverter for Wireless LAN Devices > http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/2400-to-900.html > > 2400 MHz to 1200 MHz Transverter for Wireless LAN Devices > http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/trans/index.html > > These ideas are experimental, and based around hardware I have readily > available, hence the lame design. > > Old Proxim Symphony 2.4 GHz bridges and cards sell for around $40. > > 802.11b DSSS isn't really ment for the demanding challenge which is > the 900 MHz band. The amount of in-band and outer-band interference is > staggering. It may be better to utilize the 1.2 GHz or even the 440 MHz > bands. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > From: Tony Langdon > Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:20:34 +1000 > X-Message-Number: 7 > > > 802.11b DSSS isn't really ment for the demanding challenge which is > > the 900 MHz band. The amount of in-band and outer-band=20 > > interference is > > staggering. It may be better to utilize the 1.2 GHz or even=20 > > the 440 MHz > > bands. > > 1200 and 440 MHz are also of interest to those outside the US. 1200 = > MHz is > especially interesting to me. > > --- > Outgoing mail ihas been scanned for Viruses > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.389 / Virus Database: 220 - Release Date: 16/09/2002 > =20 > > This correspondence is for the named person=92s use only. It may = > contain > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No = > confidentiality > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive = > this > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system = > and > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of = > this > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual = > sender. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: 900 MHz 802.11b > From: spamdump > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:14:18 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 8 > > Marcelo, > Please send me a email at spamdump at optonline dot net. > Ken > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-30627@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-30627@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Marcelo Puhl > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 7:30 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b > > > On 19 Sep 2002 at 19:10, spamdump wrote: > > > If you want to work in 900 MHz, go find a bunch of old NCR (then ATnT, > then > > Lucent, then Orinoco, then Agere, now Proxim) Wavelan ISA boards circa > 1990. > > They work really well. You can only get drivers that were written for > Win95 > > but happen to work with Win98, possibly ME, definately not 2000 or XP. No > > support. They do need ISA slots. My first wlan was done with these boards > > and I only took it down 2 months ago. On the up side, they are very > discrete > > and consequently very modifiable. > > > > Do you know a cheap source for those Wavelan boards? > > Thanks. > > ------ > Marcelo Puhl > http://py3ss.cjb.net > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: spamdump@optonline.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > > > --- > > END OF DIGEST > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: ussailis@shaysnet.com > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-message-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 21 07:55:31 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id HAA07907 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 07:55:30 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Lyris-Type: unsub-conf-req From: Lyris Reply-To: Lyris To: lyris.ss@tapr.org Subject: Your confirmation is needed (ok 6751) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 08:36:46 -0500 Your email address 'lyris.ss@tapr.org' has been submitted to be unsubscribed from the 'ss' mailing list. This unsubscribe command requires your confirmation that you want to be unsubscribed. To confirm that you do want to unsubscribe, reply to this message so that the words "ok 6751" appear somewhere on the subject line. Make sure that your reply message is addressed to unsubscribe-confirm@lists.tapr.org You will receive notification that your confirmation has been received, and that you have been unsubscribed. If you do not want to unsubscribe, do nothing. You will be kept on the mailing list. --- Return-Path: Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr ([195.170.0.5]) by lists.tapr.org with SMTP (Lyris Server version 3.0); Sat, 21 Sep 2002 08:36:40 -0500 Received: from roba.otenet.gr (roba.otenet.gr [195.170.0.17]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g8LCtHGS018418 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:55:17 +0300 (EEST) Received: from wses.org (athe530-h179.otenet.gr [212.205.217.179]) by roba.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with SMTP id g8LCtFJM011437 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:55:15 +0300 (EEST) Message-Id: <200209211255.g8LCtFJM011437@roba.otenet.gr> From: "kosd@wses.org" To: ss-request Subject: Sender: "kosd@wses.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:55:18 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit # Mail sent to leave-ss-6751t was converted to these commands: unsubscribe ss lyris.ss@tapr.org confirm end # This is the text of the message that triggered the action: Return-Path: Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr ([195.170.0.5]) by lists.tapr.org with SMTP (Lyris Server version 3.0); Sat, 21 Sep 2002 08:36:40 -0500 Received: from roba.otenet.gr (roba.otenet.gr [195.170.0.17]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g8LCtHGS018418 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:55:17 +0300 (EEST) Received: from wses.org (athe530-h179.otenet.gr [212.205.217.179]) by roba.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with SMTP id g8LCtFJM011437 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:55:15 +0300 (EEST) Message-Id: <200209211255.g8LCtFJM011437@roba.otenet.gr> From: "kosd@wses.org" To: Subject: Newsletter Sender: "kosd@wses.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:55:18 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit CALENDAR

    Call for Papers
    WSEAS  Conferences

    www.wseas.org

    Accepted Papers are published in:
    Proceedings, Special Issues of International Book Series
    or WSEAS Transactions (Journals)


    Singapore, December 9-12, 2002 (two conferences // NEW Deadline for paper submission: September 30, 2002)

    Puerto De La Cruz, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain, Dec. 19-21, 2002 (six conferences // NEW Deadline for paper submission: September 30, 2002)


    Astir Palace, Vouliagmeni, Athens, Greece, Dec. 29-31, 2002 (three conferences)

     



    2003

    Lanzarote, Canary Islands, Spain, February 13-15, 2003 (three conferences)

     


     

    Hyatt Regency Cancun Hotel, Cancun, Mexico, May 12-15, 2003 (five conferences)


    Andalucia Beach, Chiclana, Cadiz, Spain, June 12-16, 2003


    Corfu Island, Greece, June 25-28, 2003 (four conferences)


    Rhodes Island, Greece, July 28-30, 2003 (three conferences)


    Barcelona, Spain, September 1-3, 2003

    • 4th WSEAS Int. Conf. on LINEAR ALGEBRA, NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS (LANEA 2003)
    • 4th WSEAS Int. Conf. on DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS, OPTIMIZATION, COMPUTER MATHEMATICS AND ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS (DOCEA 2003)
    • 4th WSEAS Int. Conf. on PROBABILITY, STATISTICS, OPERATIONAL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS (PSOREA 2003)
    • 4th WSEAS Int. Conf. on ALGORITHMS THEORY, DISCRETE MATHEMATICS, SYSTEMS AND CONTROL (ADISC 2003)


    Chalkidiki, Greece, September 25-28, 2003 (four conferences)

    • 2nd WSEAS Int. Conf. on SIMULATION, MODELLING AND OPTIMIZATION (ICOSMO 2002)
    • 2nd WSEAS Int. Conf. on SIGNAL, SPEECH AND IMAGE PROCESSING (ICOSSIP 2002)
    • 2nd WSEAS Int. Conf. on MULTIMEDIA, INTERNET AND VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES (ICOMIV 2002)
    • 2nd WSEAS Int. Conf. on ROBOTICS, DISTANCE LEARNING AND INTELLIGENT COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS (ICRODIC 2002)



    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 14-17, 2003
    (same conferences as in 2002)

    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 21-24, 2003
    (same conferences as in 2002)

    Singapore, December 9-12, 2003
    (same conferences as in 2002)



    Udine, Italy, December 19-21, 2003

    • 4th WSEAS Int. Conf. on ACOUSTICS, MUSIC, SPEECH AND LANGUAGE PROCESSING (former Acoustics and Music: Theory and Applications) (ICAMSL 2003)
    • 4th WSEAS Int. Conf. on MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY (MCBC 2003)
    • 4th WSEAS Int. Conf. on MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTERS IN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS (MCBE 2003)
    • 3rd WSEAS Int. Conf. on AUTOMATION AND INFORMATION (ICAI 2003)


    Astir Palace, Vouliagmeni, Athens, Greece, December 29-31, 2003

    • 5th WSEAS Int. Conf. on MATHEMATICAL METHODS AND COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING (MMACTEE 2003)


    DO YOU WANT TO UNSUBSCRIBE?

    To unsubscribe, send an email to
    remove_for_ever@wseas.org
      with subject
    REMOVE or UNSUBSCRIBE.

    If you use different email account, include
    the email account(s) that you want to unsubscribe in the Body of your message.
     

    From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 21 08:37:26 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA09945 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 08:37:13 -0500 (CDT) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 08:37:32 -0500 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: September 19, 2002 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3D8C761C.B04D64D1@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Hi Jim, I really appreciate the comments and I am going to try and make comments and ask more questions as I go along. I am also saving the comments in a special mailbox. Let me make a general comment or two. While I would like to use 802.11b on 900 MHz; because, it easily supports data transmission PLUS VoIP...which I think is something hams need and would be interested in. But, if this isn't practical, we can go another route. My main concern is using some commercial/recognized standard that the "rest of the IT world" can relate to. One reason for this is to interest non-hams in this use of technology so we can get new blood (especially the younger generation) into ham radio. Another reason is to have something that emergency managers can relate to and be very receptive to its use. Jim Ussailis wrote: > > I can see a problem using a chipset designed for the 2.45 band at 900 > MHz. Both FH and DSSS signals generate spectral sidelobes. In the 2.45 > band there is specrum space for the sidelobes without the signal going > out of the band. This space isn't available in the 900 MHz band. > That is a special concern. As far as I know, most of the 900 MHz SS is Part 15 DSSS and is wireless telephones. I have one in my house and I certainly don't want to mess it up so anything I do will not mess up my wireless phone or the XYL (WB5WXY) will be on my case big time. Hi Hi. You comments are well founded and we should be concerned about this. > Someone needs to research the sideband attenuation requirements for the > amateur service. > One of the URLs that Steve L. mentioned leads you to a URL that has the formulas for calculating this. > Jim W1EQO > > PS FYI. The math that describes generation of these spectral sidelobes is > exactly the same as that which describes generation of antenna sidelobes. > 73 all, de Walt/K5YFW > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group digest wrote: > > > TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group Digest for Thursday, September 19, 2002. > > > > 1. 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > 2. Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > 3. Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > 4. Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > 5. Re: 900 MHz 802.11b > > 6. Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > 7. Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > 8. Re: 900 MHz 802.11b > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > From: dubose@texas.net > > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:01:34 US/Central > > X-Message-Number: 1 > > > > Apparently there is NO standard on 900 MHz for unlicensed use, so whatever is > > done by hams is not bucking an existing standard. > > > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz RF > > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > > scratch. > > > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are full > > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from the > > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > > > The more I read, I can see why TAPR wanted to go to FHSS; but, I think that the > > understanding of 802.11b makes it attractive from a "driver" standpoint for > > hams using MS, Mac, and Linux for hams as well as non-hams who might want to > > get into ham radio because of this "new" use of technology. > > > > I have noted that 802.11b on 2.4 GHz has a 22 MHz channel width and that > > channels are 5 MHz apart. Using this on 900 MHz, starting at the bottom of > > the band you would go from 902-924 Mhz but you could NOT have a second channel. > > > > However, if you could compress the channel width to 21 MHz, you could have one > > channel from 902-923 MHz and another channel from 907-928 Mhz. I don't know > > then if a standard 802.11b chipset would work. > > > > I guess the another question is are their chipsets out that do FHSS? And, > > could you marry one of those chipsets with a 900 MHz transmitter? > > > > As you can tell, I'm not interested in creating a new "wheel", just using what > > is already available (especially protocol wise) and making a usable product. > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > From: "Hugh Shane" > > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:48:33 -0600 > > X-Message-Number: 2 > > > > > > > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz > > RF > > > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > > > scratch. > > > > > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are > > full > > > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from > > the > > > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > > > > > > Take a look at Intersil's chip set: > > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ser-p25-11mbps.asp > > > > This chipset clearly separates the RF/IF parts from the MAC/baseband parts. > > I need > > to take a closer look at these, and some other vendors', parts. But it seems > > like it could > > be done without adding too many more gray hairs. > > > > Hugh > > N7UAX > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > From: dubose@texas.net > > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:12:42 US/Central > > X-Message-Number: 3 > > > > > > > > > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz > > > RF > > > > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > > > > scratch. > > > > > > > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are > > > full > > > > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from > > > the > > > > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > > > > > > > > > Take a look at Intersil's chip set: > > > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ser-p25-11mbps.asp > > > > > > This chipset clearly separates the RF/IF parts from the MAC/baseband parts. > > > I need > > > to take a closer look at these, and some other vendors', parts. But it seems > > > like it could > > > be done without adding too many more gray hairs. > > > Hugh > > > N7UAX > > > > This a great find. > > > > Just a quick look is has got my interest up. It sure does look like you could > > hack out the RF unit and add your own RF unit for 900 MHz. Of course you would > > have to be careful not to have your RF unit going outside the ham band. > > > > I am also impressed that it appears that you can use USB PCMCIA and PCI as an > > interface...one card does it all. > > > > I will have to look up how far you can run a USB cable...maybe you could put > > the card up on high on your antenna mast so you would have only a short run of > > coax. > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > From: spamdump > > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:10:19 -0400 > > X-Message-Number: 4 > > > > > > Hi > > > > After reading this thread and with my very recent Intersil prism experience, > > I'd say to find another way. Intersil is not likely to sell one or two chips > > to anyone. (Although you could buy PRISM based NICS and hack them.) They are > > only interested in accounts of 1e6 parts per year. I recently wanted to > > build 5K radios. Their answer was that they would sell me the chips but that > > I would get no support. With that as their position, I had to tell my > > customer to do it another way. They did. > > > > If you want to work in 900 MHz, go find a bunch of old NCR (then ATnT, then > > Lucent, then Orinoco, then Agere, now Proxim) Wavelan ISA boards circa 1990. > > They work really well. You can only get drivers that were written for Win95 > > but happen to work with Win98, possibly ME, definately not 2000 or XP. No > > support. They do need ISA slots. My first wlan was done with these boards > > and I only took it down 2 months ago. On the up side, they are very discrete > > and consequently very modifiable. > > > > Regards > > Ken > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: bounce-ss-30627@lists.tapr.org > > [mailto:bounce-ss-30627@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:13 PM > > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > > Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > > > > > > > > > > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 > > MHz > > > RF > > > > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > > > > scratch. > > > > > > > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are > > > full > > > > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate > > from > > > the > > > > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > > > > > > > > > Take a look at Intersil's chip set: > > > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ser-p25-11mbps.asp > > > > > > This chipset clearly separates the RF/IF parts from the MAC/baseband > > parts. > > > I need > > > to take a closer look at these, and some other vendors', parts. But it > > seems > > > like it could > > > be done without adding too many more gray hairs. > > > Hugh > > > N7UAX > > > > This a great find. > > > > Just a quick look is has got my interest up. It sure does look like you > > could > > hack out the RF unit and add your own RF unit for 900 MHz. Of course you > > would > > have to be careful not to have your RF unit going outside the ham band. > > > > I am also impressed that it appears that you can use USB PCMCIA and PCI as > > an > > interface...one card does it all. > > > > I will have to look up how far you can run a USB cable...maybe you could put > > the card up on high on your antenna mast so you would have only a short run > > of > > coax. > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: spamdump@optonline.net > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: Re: 900 MHz 802.11b > > From: "Marcelo Puhl" > > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:30:24 -0300 > > X-Message-Number: 5 > > > > On 19 Sep 2002 at 19:10, spamdump wrote: > > > > > If you want to work in 900 MHz, go find a bunch of old NCR (then ATnT, then > > > Lucent, then Orinoco, then Agere, now Proxim) Wavelan ISA boards circa 1990. > > > They work really well. You can only get drivers that were written for Win95 > > > but happen to work with Win98, possibly ME, definately not 2000 or XP. No > > > support. They do need ISA slots. My first wlan was done with these boards > > > and I only took it down 2 months ago. On the up side, they are very discrete > > > and consequently very modifiable. > > > > > > > Do you know a cheap source for those Wavelan boards? > > > > Thanks. > > > > ------ > > Marcelo Puhl > > http://py3ss.cjb.net > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > From: xlpitlum > > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:30:11 -0500 (CDT) > > X-Message-Number: 6 > > > > > Apparently there is NO standard on 900 MHz for unlicensed use, so whatever is > > > done by hams is not bucking an existing standard. > > > > > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz RF > > > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > > > scratch. > > > > > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are full > > > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from the > > > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > > > > > The more I read, I can see why TAPR wanted to go to FHSS; but, I think that the > > > understanding of 802.11b makes it attractive from a "driver" standpoint for > > > hams using MS, Mac, and Linux for hams as well as non-hams who might want to > > > get into ham radio because of this "new" use of technology. > > > > > > I have noted that 802.11b on 2.4 GHz has a 22 MHz channel width and that > > > channels are 5 MHz apart. Using this on 900 MHz, starting at the bottom of > > > the band you would go from 902-924 Mhz but you could NOT have a second channel. > > > > > > However, if you could compress the channel width to 21 MHz, you could have one > > > channel from 902-923 MHz and another channel from 907-928 Mhz. I don't know > > > then if a standard 802.11b chipset would work. > > > > > > I guess the another question is are their chipsets out that do FHSS? And, > > > could you marry one of those chipsets with a 900 MHz transmitter? > > > > > > As you can tell, I'm not interested in creating a new "wheel", just using what > > > is already available (especially protocol wise) and making a usable product. > > > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > It's theoretically possible to do this. I have some ideas for external > > transverters based around the Proxim Symphony/RangeLAN FHSS gear. Their > > low TX/RX switching times and FSK modulation makes for ideal use of > > external high-power, cellular surplus RF power amplifiers. > > > > Schematics / block diagrams are here: > > > > 2400 MHz to 900 MHz Transverter for Wireless LAN Devices > > http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/2400-to-900.html > > > > 2400 MHz to 1200 MHz Transverter for Wireless LAN Devices > > http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/trans/index.html > > > > These ideas are experimental, and based around hardware I have readily > > available, hence the lame design. > > > > Old Proxim Symphony 2.4 GHz bridges and cards sell for around $40. > > > > 802.11b DSSS isn't really ment for the demanding challenge which is > > the 900 MHz band. The amount of in-band and outer-band interference is > > staggering. It may be better to utilize the 1.2 GHz or even the 440 MHz > > bands. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > From: Tony Langdon > > Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:20:34 +1000 > > X-Message-Number: 7 > > > > > 802.11b DSSS isn't really ment for the demanding challenge which is > > > the 900 MHz band. The amount of in-band and outer-band=20 > > > interference is > > > staggering. It may be better to utilize the 1.2 GHz or even=20 > > > the 440 MHz > > > bands. > > > > 1200 and 440 MHz are also of interest to those outside the US. 1200 = > > MHz is > > especially interesting to me. > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail ihas been scanned for Viruses > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.389 / Virus Database: 220 - Release Date: 16/09/2002 > > =20 > > > > This correspondence is for the named person=92s use only. It may = > > contain > > confidential or legally privileged information or both. No = > > confidentiality > > or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive = > > this > > correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system = > > and > > notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of = > > this > > correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. > > > > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual = > > sender. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Subject: Re: 900 MHz 802.11b > > From: spamdump > > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 21:14:18 -0400 > > X-Message-Number: 8 > > > > Marcelo, > > Please send me a email at spamdump at optonline dot net. > > Ken > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: bounce-ss-30627@lists.tapr.org > > [mailto:bounce-ss-30627@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Marcelo Puhl > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 7:30 PM > > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > > Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b > > > > > > On 19 Sep 2002 at 19:10, spamdump wrote: > > > > > If you want to work in 900 MHz, go find a bunch of old NCR (then ATnT, > > then > > > Lucent, then Orinoco, then Agere, now Proxim) Wavelan ISA boards circa > > 1990. > > > They work really well. You can only get drivers that were written for > > Win95 > > > but happen to work with Win98, possibly ME, definately not 2000 or XP. No > > > support. They do need ISA slots. My first wlan was done with these boards > > > and I only took it down 2 months ago. On the up side, they are very > > discrete > > > and consequently very modifiable. > > > > > > > Do you know a cheap source for those Wavelan boards? > > > > Thanks. > > > > ------ > > Marcelo Puhl > > http://py3ss.cjb.net > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: spamdump@optonline.net > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > END OF DIGEST > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to ss as: ussailis@shaysnet.com > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 21 12:28:13 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA19267 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 12:28:11 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:31:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: September 19, 2002 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id MAA19267 Been scratching my head over this thread. A few comments before it dies on the vine. >While I would like to use 802.11b on 900 MHz; Much easier to use 802.11b on 2.4 ghz! And if your not already doing it, I suggest you try it first instead of putting a barrier to entry up (having to roll the whole thing from scratch.... not a trival effort.) >But, if this isn't practical, we can go another route. If you want 900mhz, just use the old ncr/wavelan boards.... plenty of them still around and they will do 1megabit on 900mhz DSSS. Drivers for windows and Linux available. Transparent to data and VoIP works just fine on them. I even have three extra ones I'd consider selling ;-) My point being it is more important to get on the air then to theorize how things should be.... a valid long term goal mind you, but there is so much you can do with modified Part 15 equipment already. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 21 13:24:45 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA21204 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:24:39 -0500 (CDT) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:25:21 -0500 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: September 19, 2002 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3D8CB991.A0FB92DC@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Jeff King wrote: > > Been scratching my head over this thread. A few comments before it dies on > the vine. > > >While I would like to use 802.11b on 900 MHz; > > Much easier to use 802.11b on 2.4 ghz! And if your not already doing it, I > suggest you try it first instead of putting a barrier to entry up (having to > roll the whole thing from scratch.... not a trival effort.) > There are problems like going through trees if you can't put up an antenna higher than 30-35 ft which is a deed restriction in several areas..and the like. Also, its is easier to get a 900 MHz signal from the shack up a tower than 2.4 GHz. It would be nice to get a little more power output on 2.4 GHz than one watt. Even 3-5 watts would be nice; but, there are some safety considerations that are more apparent there than on 900 MHz. Certainly the Proxin card could be hacked and a separate RF module used. But for a home project, 900 MHz is probably easier to build. I certainly am not advocating rolling your own "card" for 900 MHz OR 2.4 GHz. > >But, if this isn't practical, we can go another route. > > If you want 900mhz, just use the old ncr/wavelan boards.... plenty of them > still around and they will do 1megabit on 900mhz DSSS. Drivers for windows > and Linux available. Transparent to data and VoIP works just fine on them. I > even have three extra ones I'd consider selling ;-) > I think that we want to stay from using "surplus" equipment. VHF FM was around for 15 years using surplus commercial 2-way equipment before ham VHF FM equipment became available. Then it really took off. I would like to prevent this scenario. > My point being it is more important to get on the air then to theorize how > things should be.... a valid long term goal mind you, but there is so much > you can do with modified Part 15 equipment already. > I think it IS important to get on the air; but, for any standard protocol to be accepted and used, we need to start with it. There is actually quite a bit of 900 and 2.4 ham activity...its just not advertised and not networked. We can put what protocol to use/ development into a committee and it will die there 20 years from now. But if we take an existing generally accepted protocol and "deploy" it on the ham bands, we can further the communications skills that compete with what is offered in the non-ham world at the present time. Walt/K5YFW > -Jeff > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 21 13:46:11 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA22432 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:46:10 -0500 (CDT) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:46:44 -0500 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3D8CBE94.590EF7A2@texas.net> Precedence: bulk Thanks Hugh...this is a nice find for someone wanting/needing parts to roll their own card. Walt/K5YFW Hugh Shane wrote: > > > > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz > RF > > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > > scratch. > > > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are > full > > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from > the > > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > > > Take a look at Intersil's chip set: > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ser-p25-11mbps.asp > > This chipset clearly separates the RF/IF parts from the MAC/baseband parts. > I need > to take a closer look at these, and some other vendors', parts. But it seems > like it could > be done without adding too many more gray hairs. > > Hugh > N7UAX > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 21 13:50:54 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA22611 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:50:46 -0500 (CDT) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:51:26 -0500 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3D8CBFAE.DB8A4462@texas.net> Precedence: bulk spamdump wrote: > > Hi > > After reading this thread and with my very recent Intersil prism experience, > I'd say to find another way. Intersil is not likely to sell one or two chips > to anyone. (Although you could buy PRISM based NICS and hack them.) They are > only interested in accounts of 1e6 parts per year. I recently wanted to > build 5K radios. Their answer was that they would sell me the chips but that > I would get no support. With that as their position, I had to tell my > customer to do it another way. They did. You really can't blame them for not wanting to deal with small quantities. But what I see is their capability to perhaps build, or someone to build a 2.4 GHz 802.11b card for the hambands that has more power output than one watt. Perhaps one of the current suppliers of ham gear could get them to do that. > > If you want to work in 900 MHz, go find a bunch of old NCR (then ATnT, then > Lucent, then Orinoco, then Agere, now Proxim) Wavelan ISA boards circa 1990. > They work really well. You can only get drivers that were written for Win95 > but happen to work with Win98, possibly ME, definately not 2000 or XP. No > support. They do need ISA slots. My first wlan was done with these boards > and I only took it down 2 months ago. On the up side, they are very discrete > and consequently very modifiable. > Again, I'm not sure we want to go the "surplus" route like we did in the early days of VHF FM. 73, Walt/K5YFW > Regards > Ken > > -----Original Message----- > From: bounce-ss-30627@lists.tapr.org > [mailto:bounce-ss-30627@lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of dubose@texas.net > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:13 PM > To: TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group > Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) > > > > > > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 > MHz > > RF > > > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > > > scratch. > > > > > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are > > full > > > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate > from > > the > > > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > > > > > > Take a look at Intersil's chip set: > > http://www.intersil.com/design/prism/ser-p25-11mbps.asp > > > > This chipset clearly separates the RF/IF parts from the MAC/baseband > parts. > > I need > > to take a closer look at these, and some other vendors', parts. But it > seems > > like it could > > be done without adding too many more gray hairs. > > Hugh > > N7UAX > > This a great find. > > Just a quick look is has got my interest up. It sure does look like you > could > hack out the RF unit and add your own RF unit for 900 MHz. Of course you > would > have to be careful not to have your RF unit going outside the ham band. > > I am also impressed that it appears that you can use USB PCMCIA and PCI as > an > interface...one card does it all. > > I will have to look up how far you can run a USB cable...maybe you could put > the card up on high on your antenna mast so you would have only a short run > of > coax. > > Walt/K5YFW > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: spamdump@optonline.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 21 13:53:44 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id NAA22731 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:53:39 -0500 (CDT) Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:54:02 -0500 From: Walt DuBose X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3D8CC04A.108DE6AA@texas.net> Precedence: bulk xlpitlum wrote: > > 802.11b DSSS isn't really ment for the demanding challenge which is > the 900 MHz band. The amount of in-band and outer-band interference is > staggering. It may be better to utilize the 1.2 GHz or even the 440 MHz > bands. > I think the ARRL HSMM working group is also thinking along this line... at least for 1.2 GHz. -- k5yfw xlpitlum wrote: > > > Apparently there is NO standard on 900 MHz for unlicensed use, so whatever is > > done by hams is not bucking an existing standard. > > > > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a 900 MHz RF > > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting from > > scratch. > > > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that there are full > > chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully they are separate from the > > RF portion of 2.4 GHz. > > > > The more I read, I can see why TAPR wanted to go to FHSS; but, I think that the > > understanding of 802.11b makes it attractive from a "driver" standpoint for > > hams using MS, Mac, and Linux for hams as well as non-hams who might want to > > get into ham radio because of this "new" use of technology. > > > > I have noted that 802.11b on 2.4 GHz has a 22 MHz channel width and that > > channels are 5 MHz apart. Using this on 900 MHz, starting at the bottom of > > the band you would go from 902-924 Mhz but you could NOT have a second channel. > > > > However, if you could compress the channel width to 21 MHz, you could have one > > channel from 902-923 MHz and another channel from 907-928 Mhz. I don't know > > then if a standard 802.11b chipset would work. > > > > I guess the another question is are their chipsets out that do FHSS? And, > > could you marry one of those chipsets with a 900 MHz transmitter? > > > > As you can tell, I'm not interested in creating a new "wheel", just using what > > is already available (especially protocol wise) and making a usable product. > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > It's theoretically possible to do this. I have some ideas for external > transverters based around the Proxim Symphony/RangeLAN FHSS gear. Their > low TX/RX switching times and FSK modulation makes for ideal use of > external high-power, cellular surplus RF power amplifiers. > > Schematics / block diagrams are here: > > 2400 MHz to 900 MHz Transverter for Wireless LAN Devices > http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/2400-to-900.html > > 2400 MHz to 1200 MHz Transverter for Wireless LAN Devices > http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/trans/index.html > > These ideas are experimental, and based around hardware I have readily > available, hence the lame design. > > Old Proxim Symphony 2.4 GHz bridges and cards sell for around $40. > > 802.11b DSSS isn't really ment for the demanding challenge which is > the 900 MHz band. The amount of in-band and outer-band interference is > staggering. It may be better to utilize the 1.2 GHz or even the 440 MHz > bands. > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: dubose@texas.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 21 14:53:02 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA25041 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 14:53:01 -0500 (CDT) X-Internal-ID: 3D885DE300047694 From: "Marcelo Puhl" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:52:55 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ss] Wavelan 915 MHz range? Reply-to: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Message-ID: Priority: normal In-reply-to: Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio X-Message-Id: <3D8CA3E7.10114.4D1EEF0@localhost> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk What will be the expected range using external antennas with those 915 MHz Wavelan 250 mW cards? Anyone have experience with that? Thanks. -------------------- Marcelo Puhl http://py3ss.cjb.net -------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 21 14:54:51 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id OAA25095 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 14:54:50 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:54:09 -0400 From: "Eric S. Johansson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <3D8CCE61.7020107@harvee.billerica.ma.us> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk xlpitlum wrote: > 802.11b DSSS isn't really ment for the demanding challenge which is > the 900 MHz band. The amount of in-band and outer-band interference is > staggering. It may be better to utilize the 1.2 GHz or even the 440 MHz > bands. try dropping the data rate to 1mbs and increasing process gain. We'll probably consume only slightly less bandwidth but we would gain in interference resistance. --- eric --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 21 15:56:51 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id PAA27372 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:56:48 -0500 (CDT) X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook is dangerous and makes your system susceptible to Internet worms. Message-Id: X-Sender: brett@localhost Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 14:55:58 -0600 To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: Brett Glass Subject: [ss] Re: Wavelan 915 MHz range? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020921145225.026f1d90@localhost> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk At 01:52 PM 9/21/2002, Marcelo Puhl wrote: >What will be the expected range using external antennas >with those 915 MHz Wavelan 250 mW cards? It depends entirely upon the RF environment in your area. The 900 MHz band is massively overlicensed, with far too many overlapping uses (including paging, vehicle tracking, medical equipment, unlicensed LANs, cordless phones, and amateur radio). The Ricochet network, which blankets some cities, was turned off for a bit but was bought for peanuts and is now coming back online. It completely ruins the band for any other use. In short, your signal could go for two miles or two blocks. Yet another example of Fox Charlie Charlie's blundering mismanagement of spectrum (sigh). --Brett --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 21 17:50:44 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA03115 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 17:50:41 -0500 (CDT) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) In-Reply-To: from "Eric S. Johansson" at "Sep 21, 2002 3:54: 9 pm" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 17:49:54 -0500 (CDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209212249.RAA01060@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > try dropping the data rate to 1mbs and increasing process gain. We'll > probably consume only slightly less bandwidth but we would gain in > interference resistance. > The IEEE 802.11 complementary spreading codes have a code length of 8 and a chipping rate of 11 Mchips/s. The 8 complex chips comprise a single symbol. By making the symbol rate 1.375 Msymbols/s the 11 Mbps CCK waveform ends up occupying the same approximate bandwidth as that for the 2 Mbps QPSK waveform. Also, we'd need to avoid narrow bandwidth, non-frequency agile systems as they are more interference prone. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 21 18:02:37 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id SAA04053 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 18:02:33 -0500 (CDT) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: Wavelan 915 MHz range? In-Reply-To: from Marcelo Puhl at "Sep 21, 2002 4:52:55 pm" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 18:01:55 -0500 (CDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209212301.SAA02690@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > > What will be the expected range using external antennas > with those 915 MHz Wavelan 250 mW cards? > Range depends on the local interference. If there is a 900 MHz pager or cellular site in your antenna's beamwidth, consider your link useless. Good line-of-sight, no interference operations have pushed these cards out to 20 miles with high gain yagis. More information, including pics and external power amplifier designs: http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/appendixE.html Note: increasing RF output power isn't technically the right way to overcome interference, it's just really fun. Also, you can substitute Hittite HMC154 MMIC RF switches for the MD003 and MCL switch you'll see in the schematics. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sat Sep 21 21:47:34 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id VAA12767 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 21:47:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeff King To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 22:51:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: Subject: [ss] Re: Wavelan 915 MHz range? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Message-Id: Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id VAA12767 On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:52:55 -0300, Marcelo Puhl wrote: > >What will be the expected range using external antennas >with those 915 MHz Wavelan 250 mW cards? I've had them unreliable at a 1/4mile and rock solid at 12 miles. Depends on the link engineering as well as local interference issues. -Jeff --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Sep 22 17:15:08 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id RAA28746 for ; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 17:15:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: From: Tony Langdon To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: September 19, 2002 Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:13:58 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by tapr.org id RAA28746 > Also, its is easier to get a 900 MHz signal from the shack up a > tower > than 2.4 GHz. It would be nice to get a little more power The wireless LAN groups have solved this little problem for lower powered applications. Do a Google search on "Power over Ethernet". For higher power, keep the business end up the tower and run a heavy DC cable. :) As for the rest of the discussion, I'd personally prefer to see effort go into making the 2.4 GHz gear work on other bands such as 1.2 GHz, or the higher bands. 900 MHz is not an amateur band in these parts (and even if it was, there's no way we could get enough band space to run 802.11b due to GSM phones that eat into the bottom part of the ISM band). --- Outgoing mail ihas been scanned for Viruses Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.389 / Virus Database: 220 - Release Date: 16/09/2002 This correspondence is for the named person’s use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 23 02:47:39 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id CAA20951 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 02:47:35 -0500 (CDT) From: xlpitlum Message-Id: Subject: [ss] Re: ss digest: September 19, 2002 In-Reply-To: from Tony Langdon at "Sep 23, 2002 8:13:58 am" To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 02:46:47 -0500 (CDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209230746.CAA24880@online.dct.com> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > > Also, its is easier to get a 900 MHz signal from the shack up a > > tower > > than 2.4 GHz. It would be nice to get a little more power > > The wireless LAN groups have solved this little problem for lower powered > applications. Do a Google search on "Power over Ethernet". For higher > power, keep the business end up the tower and run a heavy DC cable. :) > > As for the rest of the discussion, I'd personally prefer to see effort go > into making the 2.4 GHz gear work on other bands such as 1.2 GHz, or the > higher bands. 900 MHz is not an amateur band in these parts (and even if it > was, there's no way we could get enough band space to run 802.11b due to GSM > phones that eat into the bottom part of the ISM band). > An ideal, theoretical, setup would be using stock 802.11b hardware connected to an external downconverter to convert the 2.4 GHz band down to a 70 MHz IF. Then use cheap 75-ohm coax (RG-6 or even RG-58) to connect up to a tower/antenna mounted upconverter and amplifier combo. --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From T.Thompson@bureau.ucc.ie Mon Sep 23 10:32:03 2002 Received: from smtp.yukaido.ne.jp (smtp.yukaido.ne.jp [210.230.82.4]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id KAA07745 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:32:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 61091 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2002 00:31:51 +0900 Received: from unknown (203.197.126.104) by smtp.yukaido.ne.jp with SMTP; 24 Sep 2002 00:31:51 +0900 Message-ID: <0000284a2314$000017eb$0000449d@integris.se> To: From: "Sales" Subject: Guaranteed Returns On Your Investment Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:32:19 -1900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Secured Investements

    Earn 15%-300% I= nterest On Your Money
    GUARANTEED BY THE GOVERNMENT!

    Government S= ecured Tax Cerificates Provide:

  • The highest guaranteed interest returns compared to any other investme= nt.
  • A return up to 100 times your money backed by government secured prope= rty.
  • Security in your investment that the stock market cannot compare to.
  • Real estate for pennies on the dollar!

    • America's largest= single source of information/education for the government tax industry. Celebrating o= ver 12 years of providing quality, leading edge education for the serious en= trepreneur & investor.

    Receive your FREE video of "INSIDER SECRETS OF INVESTING IN GOVERNMENT SECURED TAX CERTIFICATES."
    (Over 90 min. of inside strategies, a $39= 95 value)

    Fill out the no oblig= ation form below for more information.

    Required Input Fie= ld*

    Objective



    *All tax liens and= deeds directly support local fire departments, police departments, schools, roads, and hospitals.= Thank you for your interest and support.
    To be removed, please click here    .

    From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 23 11:33:23 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id LAA11674 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:33:23 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:05:56 +0100 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 23/09/2002 17:08:13 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > It would seem simple to take a basic 802.11b chip and run it on a > 900 MHz RF > board. Well, maybe not simple; but, it would not be like starting > from scratch. > > There are some 900 MHz RF part availabe and I understand that > there are full chipsets out that have 802.11b on them? Hopefully > they are separate from the RF portion of 2.4 GHz. The Prism chipsets are now old hat. The latest releases are the Marvell "Libertas" WLAN chips. 88W8300 is a complete baseband to USB/PCI; 88W8500 is a complete WLAN AP to 10/100Mbit/s twisted-pair. Also Realtek RTL8180L single-chip baseband. In fact the days of Linux OpenAP look numbered; the AP as we know it is now an ASIC. In the next 6 months WLAN transceiver prices I expect will drop by half. Many chipsets require (or contain) a microcontroller that implements low-level elements of the 802.11b protocols. To get them to work requires substantial software effort or licensing from the chipset supplier. Linux contains source for 802.11b WLAN drivers, but relies on the cards firmware for detailed protocol support. You're better off buying a card and sawing off the 2.4GHz bit. I have obtained small quantities of Prism devices from Intersil disties; the other devices mentioned above you've got no chance. They'll only be interested in major design-ins. I have 10 off HFA3683 if anyone has a use for them - I don't think that's the baseband chip. Note 802.11b DSSS has a code length of only 11 - given that the demod needs an SNR of 14dB or more, it's hardly very impressive or robust as a spread- spectrum system. The AMI waveplex chips allow much longer codes. Pity their on-chip VCOs aren't up to the job of locking such large ratios. USB distance is max 5m; I compute 6m given expensive cable with low velocity-factor. Repeatered extension cables can be cascaded. Can be used to connect a mast-mount transceiver to a PC in the attic; for a PC in the garage you're better off with ethernet TP. I'm preparing to install 100Mbit/s TP everywhere; up the mast, down the garden, in the shed, with a hub in the utility cupboard. I've wondered if a downlead is necessary at all, as an AP on a mast can operate repeater to a WLAN card on the ground; you can even setup a login and configure it remotely over-the-air. I decided not to burn bandwidth. I want to serve video and run videochat and leave amateur packet and ATV in the dust! If you've got a laptop in the car, one of the new USB pods on a magnet sounds great. Having taken a 2.4GHz design and hacked it to circa 900MHz, it is doable. Yes, obviously you'll need to change the filters, the VCO, the synth programming, and lots of RF matching networks. Many RF chips for 2.4GHz will work fine at 900MHz; they're not that narrow band. You may find you have too much gain and things oscillate. If you keep the high IF and reduce the LO and RF frequency, expect problems with unwanted mixing products in-band. Mixing high-side can help, but really you need to re-architect and select a lower IF frequency, whatever is common in 900MHz designs; but are SAW filters for 802.11b bandwidths available? There are about 3 key components that make it difficult for amateurs to do these designs as they're difficult to get in small qualtities, or the investment for custom parts is high; SAW IF filters, Ceramic or SAW RF filters, and VCOs. The market seems to be flush with cheap 13MHz TCXOs; 2 years ago TCXOs were a problem. In fact this is the reason why the military would find it difficult to get a WLAN card for alternative frequencies; less than 10,000 pieces nobody would be interested. As 900MHz is peculiar to North America. It makes more sense to concentrate on bands with more BW and more amateurs. You also have devices like the Cybiko which already have cheap 900MHz transceivers you can play about with. Ant --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 23 11:45:45 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id LAA13230 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:45:44 -0500 (CDT) From: s.monsey@att.net To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:44:53 +0000 X-Authenticated-Sender: Ml0sVVJiTzw2OCgzKjlKUixCKTwtL2VnPkNQVmdhTGA= Message-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <20020923164454.SFQH28665.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@mtiwebc21> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk If one has to retune filters, VCO's etc. Anyone concider 1.2Ghz? Steve N0FPF > > As 900MHz is peculiar to North America. It makes more > sense to concentrate on bands with more BW and more > amateurs. You also have devices like the Cybiko which > already have cheap 900MHz transceivers you can play > about with. > > Ant > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ss as: s.monsey@att.net > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Mon Sep 23 12:59:28 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id MAA17500 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:59:26 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: dubose@texas.net Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:58:35 US/Central X-User: dubose List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: <200209231758.g8NHwZK23841@mw6.texas.net> Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > If one has to retune filters, VCO's etc. > > Anyone concider 1.2Ghz? > Considering what Ant said, 1.2 GHz certainly looks like a better candidate than 900 MHz. That's Ok with me...I used to have and APX-6 on 1296. Walt/K5YFW PS, I was a danger to myself and others with the RF back then. > Steve N0FPF > > > > As 900MHz is peculiar to North America. It makes more > > sense to concentrate on bands with more BW and more > > amateurs. You also have devices like the Cybiko which > > already have cheap 900MHz transceivers you can play > > about with. > > > > Ant > > --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Tue Sep 24 04:57:57 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id EAA27459 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 04:57:55 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ss] Re: 900 MHz 802.11b (Thinking Out Loud) To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" From: "Anthony N Martin" Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:49:01 +0100 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1 (Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 24/09/2002 10:51:19 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Unsubscribe: List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: List-Owner: X-List-Host: Tucson Amateur Packet Radio Reply-To: "TAPR Spread Spectrum Special Interest Group" X-Message-Id: Sender: bounce-ss-6751@lists.tapr.org Precedence: bulk > If one has to retune filters, VCO's etc. > > Anyone concider 1.2Ghz? > Considering what Ant said, 1.2 GHz certainly looks like a better candidate than 900 MHz. That's Ok with me...I used to have and APX-6 on 1296. Why? A dish or an omni alford slot has more gain at 2.4GHz for the same size. Why's it so difficult to build power amps at 2.4GHz? There are cheap PA devices for 900MHz GSM phones. There are also cheap devices for 1.8GHz GSM phones that could be usable at 2.4GHz. Making PAs suitable for mast-mount could be a pain. Range in foliage & buildings is about 50% more at 900MHz compared to 2.4GHz. Not spectacular. If there's a reason, it would be the overcrowding at 2.4GHz. I don't think that's happened here yet, but over the next 5 years perhaps, as the cost of WLAN is dropping and I expect many will adopt WLAN home networking. By then I think we'll be modifying 802.11a 5.6GHz devices. 1.3GHz is already pretty crowded with ATV repeaters & the like. I'm happy to use what I've already got, and build and erect effective antennas. As far as the 802.11b protocol is concerned, it isn't designed for star networks. Neither is AX.25. Where we put up a decent omni on a server and clients connect via dishes or yagis, we need a protocol that doesn't rely 100% on collision detection. It'll work fine until I get some users really using it. 802.11 isn't the answer to all problems. Performance is not down to RF alone - there's a need for software people to work on efficient protocols. Ant, M1FDE --- You are currently subscribed to ss as: lyris.ss@tapr.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ss-6751T@lists.tapr.org From bounce-message-6751@lists.tapr.org Fri Sep 27 08:43:54 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id IAA00644 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:43:54 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Lyris-Type: unsub-conf-req From: Lyris Reply-To: Lyris To: lyris.ss@tapr.org Subject: Your confirmation is needed (ok 6751) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:25:30 -0500 Your email address 'lyris.ss@tapr.org' has been submitted to be unsubscribed from the 'ss' mailing list. This unsubscribe command requires your confirmation that you want to be unsubscribed. To confirm that you do want to unsubscribe, reply to this message so that the words "ok 6751" appear somewhere on the subject line. Make sure that your reply message is addressed to unsubscribe-confirm@lists.tapr.org You will receive notification that your confirmation has been received, and that you have been unsubscribed. If you do not want to unsubscribe, do nothing. You will be kept on the mailing list. --- Return-Path: Received: from looking.iplannetworks.net ([200.69.193.218]) by lists.tapr.org with SMTP (Lyris Server version 3.0); Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:25:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 14498 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 02:45:34 -0000 Received: from ol151-192.fibertel.com.ar (HELO unspecified.host) (24.232.192.151) by 0 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 02:45:34 -0000 Received: from 193.171.155.90 ([193.171.155.90]) by 24.232.192.151 (WinRoute Pro 4.1) with SMTP; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 23:41:42 -0300 Message-ID: <00005a676f69$00005735$00001252@mail.nso.go.kr> To: ss-request From: "E-Business News" Subject: Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:42:06 -1900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable # Mail sent to leave-ss-6751t was converted to these commands: unsubscribe ss lyris.ss@tapr.org confirm end # This is the text of the message that triggered the action: Return-Path: Received: from looking.iplannetworks.net ([200.69.193.218]) by lists.tapr.org with SMTP (Lyris Server version 3.0); Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:25:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 14498 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 02:45:34 -0000 Received: from ol151-192.fibertel.com.ar (HELO unspecified.host) (24.232.192.151) by 0 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 02:45:34 -0000 Received: from 193.171.155.90 ([193.171.155.90]) by 24.232.192.151 (WinRoute Pro 4.1) with SMTP; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 23:41:42 -0300 Message-ID: <00005a676f69$00005735$00001252@mail.nso.go.kr> To: From: "E-Business News" Subject: Conference Calls For Less Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:42:06 -1900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lowest Rate Services

    Conferencing Made= Easy
    Only 18 Cents Per Minute!    =

    (Including Long Distance!)=

    <= /TABLE>

  • No setup fees
  • No contracts or monthly fees
  • Call anytime, from anywhere, to anywhere
  • Connects up to 100 Participants
  • Simplicity in set up and administration
  • Operator Help available 24/7
    • T= he Highest Quality Service For The Lowest Rate In The Industry!=

    =
    Fill out the form be= low to find out how you can lower your phone bill every month.

    Required Input Field*

    Name*
    Web Address
    Company Name*
    State*
    Business Phone*
    Home Phone
    Email Address*
    Type of Business



    To be removed from this list, send an e-mail to remove@b= 2b-mail.net
    Type the word "remove" in the subject line.     .

    From <@guaweb.com:J.Kasey@alpha.uwb.edu.pl> Sat Sep 28 21:08:27 2002 Received: from guaweb.com ([211.154.38.72]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id VAA23782; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:07:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ns1.et.tudelft.nl([142.176.235.10]) by guaweb.com(JetMail 2.5.3.0) with SMTP id jm653d96619c; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 02:01:27 -0000 Message-ID: <000030b86805$000014f4$000026ce@mx.gate.uunet.be> To: From: "E-Business News" Subject: Take Advantage of The Economy While You Can! Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 19:08:20 -1900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    = <= tr>
    Reduce Your Debt & Eliminate All I= nterest and Fees!
    Click Here Now to Reduce Your Debt up to = 60%

    Y= our Free, No Obligation Debt Consultation
    is only a Click away!
    • 100% Confidential= : Your consultation is strictly private!
    • Speed things up: Pay off your balances = faster!
    • Elimin= ate Fees: Get rid of those annoying Over-Limit and Late Fees
    • No Home Ownership requi= red
    Restore Your Credit Rating =
    End credito= r harrassment and leave the hassle behind!
    You can be Debt-Free in 24 Months or L= ess!
    From bounce-message-6751@lists.tapr.org Sun Sep 29 02:55:06 2002 Received: from lists.tapr.org (lists.tapr.org [204.17.217.24]) by tapr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.13) with SMTP id CAA05741 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 02:54:59 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: X-Lyris-Type: unsub-conf-req From: Lyris Reply-To: Lyris To: lyris.ss@tapr.org Subject: Your confirmation is needed (ok 6751) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 03:36:31 -0500 Your email address 'lyris.ss@tapr.org' has been submitted to be unsubscribed from the 'ss' mailing list. This unsubscribe command requires your confirmation that you want to be unsubscribed. To confirm that you do want to unsubscribe, reply to this message so that the words "ok 6751" appear somewhere on the subject line. Make sure that your reply message is addressed to unsubscribe-confirm@lists.tapr.org You will receive notification that your confirmation has been received, and that you have been unsubscribed. If you do not want to unsubscribe, do nothing. You will be kept on the mailing list. --- Return-Path: Received: from mail ([210.255.105.66]) by lists.tapr.org with SMTP (Lyris Server version 3.0); Sun, 29 Sep 2002 03:36:20 -0500 Received: from smtp1.lerelaisinternet.com [210.111.140.195] by mail with ESMTP (SMTPD32-4.10) id A32022A5024A; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:56:16 +0900 Message-ID: <00000fb67384$000068de$0000233e@smtp1.lerelaisinternet.com> To: ss-request From: "Customer Service" Subject: Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:54:44 -1900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable # Mail sent to leave-ss-6751t was converted to these commands: unsubscribe ss lyris.ss@tapr.org confirm end # This is the text of the message that triggered the action: Return-Path: Received: from mail ([210.255.105.66]) by lists.tapr.org with SMTP (Lyris Server version 3.0); Sun, 29 Sep 2002 03:36:20 -0500 Received: from smtp1.lerelaisinternet.com [210.111.140.195] by mail with ESMTP (SMTPD32-4.10) id A32022A5024A; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:56:16 +0900 Message-ID: <00000fb67384$000068de$0000233e@smtp1.lerelaisinternet.com> To: From: "Customer Service" Subject: Instantly Eliminate 60% Of Your Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:54:44 -1900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "2" cellspacing=3D"0"> "#ffffff" border=3D"0" width=3D"470" cellpadding=3D"5" cellspacing=3D"0"> "arial" size=3D"4" color=3D"#FCFCAF">Reduce Your Debt & Eliminate All I= nterest and Fees! ter"> al" size=3D"4" color=3D"#0000ff">Click Here Now to Reduce Your Debt up to = 60% "> our Free, No Obligation Debt Consultation
    is only a Click away! rial" size=3D"2" color=3D"#5A106C"> : Your consultation is strictly private! > #5A106C"> faster! t face=3D"arial" size=3D"2" color=3D"#5A106C"> ate Fees: Get rid of those annoying Over-Limit and Late Fees size=3D"2" color=3D"#5A106C"> red r> size=3D"5" color=3D"#0000ff">Restore Your Credit Rating
    End credito= r harrassment and leave the hassle behind! tr> al" size=3D"3" color=3D"#FCFCAF">You can be Debt-Free in 24 Months or L= ess! r>